[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]












                                            A
         31:)3E:r-...XLWAAn3E IBIE:AALN7Mn r-IA IkJAhX7.MMMWUr ]Pr-JAALW



                      Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
             Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control



                                   September, 1991













  -Ij







                              MP












          QC    d through Federal Grant from the Office of Coastal Zone
                ment, NOAA under provision of Section 306 of the Coastal
          737         Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended.
          .R632
          D45
          1991











         M M X. ALWAlk 3R MM3SA1kN7M3P-



                      Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
             Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control



                                  September, 1991
























                             0                           VP

















           Funded through Federal Grant from the Office of Coastal Zone
          Management, NOAA under provision of Section 306 of the Coastal
                      Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended.










                                     Table of Contents
                                                                                 PG. NO.


                  Executive Summary   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         V-vii

              I.  Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           1

             II.  General Policy and Plan Purpose     . . . . . . . . . . .       1-2

            III.  Biology and Ecology   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         2-7
                  1.   Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          2-3
                  2.   Range and Habitat  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          3
                  3.   Dens, Lodges, Dams and Other     Structures . . . . .      3-4
                  4.   Food Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          4-5
                  5.   Wetlands Successional Cycles     . . . . . . . . . .        5
                  6.   Reproduction and Development     . . . . . . . . . .       5-6
                  7.   Population Structure and Density      . . . . . . . .       6
                  8.   Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           7

             IV.  Status and Trends of Beaver in Delaware      . . . . . . .      7-17
                  1.   Historical Distribution of Beaver in
                       North America, the mid-Atlantic, and
                       Delaware  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          7-9
                  2.   Current Status of Beaver     in Delaware  . . . . . .       9
                  3.   Current Distribution and     Population of
                       Beaver in Delaware    . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .        9-15
                  4.   Future Population Growth     of Beavers in
                       Delaware  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         15-16
                  5.   Examples of Beaverdam Wetlands Habitat in
                       Delaware  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         16-17


              V.  Environmental and Socioeconomic Benefits of
                  Beavers and Beaverdam Wetlands      . . . . . . . . . . .      17-21
                  1.   Quality Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Habitat       . . .    17-19
                  2.   Recreation and Aesthetics    . . . . . . . . . . . .       19
                  3.   Flood Control  . . . . . . . . . . .    * * * *  * *  *    19
                  4.   Water Quality Effects-Dissolved Nutrients
                       and Particulate Sediments    . . . . . . . . . . . .      19-21
                  5.   Summary of Attributes   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        21

             VI.  Socioeconomic/Environmental Problems       Caused by
                  Beavers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          21-22
                  1. Flooding Problems    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        21-22
                  2. Other Damages to Property      . . . . . . . . . . . .       22

            VII.  Determination if Substantive Beaver-Caused
                  Socioeconomic Problems are Occurring       . . . . . . . .     23-26
                  1.   Types and Locations of Potential Problems and
                       Factors to Consider and Evaluate      . . . . . . . .     23-24
                       A.  Private Lands in Urban or Suburban Areas               23
                       B.  Tax Ditches  . . . . . . . . .    * -                 23-24
                       C.  Public Lands-Conservation or Recr;atii@n*
                           Areas. . .                                 ' *         24
                       D.  Highways, R;ilw;yL,'Alrp*ort;              . . . .     24

                                           i










                       E. Private Land in Rural Areas (Non-tax
                           Ditch)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           24
                  2.   Prioritization of Concerns if Two or More
                       Types of Problems are Occurring at One Site      . . .    24-25
                  3.   Integration of Factors to Make a Decision if
                       Substantive Problems are Occurring and if
                       Remedial Action is Warranted     . . . . . . . . . .      25-26


          VIII. Remedial Response Options if a Substantive Beaver-
                  Caused Socioeconomic Problem is Occurring      . . . . . .     26-38
                  1.   Live-trapping and Transfer of Problem-Beavers.            26-31
                       A.  Identification of Potential Release Sites
                           for Live-trapped and Transferred Beaver      . . .    26-28
                       B.  Potential Release Sites in Delaware      . . . . .    28-30
                       C.  Methods of Live-trapping     . . . . . . . . . .        30
                       D.  Methods of Transfer   . . . . . . . . . . . . .       30-31
                       E.  Potential Need and Procedures for Repro-
                           ductive Control of Transferred Beavers       . . .      31
                       F.  Long-Term Monitoring of Transferred
                           Beavers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          31
                  2.   Dispatch of Problem-Beavers    . . . . . . .   * , *  *   31-32
                  3.   Regulated Trapping Program Open to the Public.        .   32-34
                  4.   Structural Remedies to Resolve Flooding
                       Problems Caused by Beavers     . . . . . . . . . . .      34-36
                  5.   Choosing a Remedial Response for a Substantive
                       Beaver-Caused Problem   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       36-37
                  6.   Criteria for Evaluating the Environmental
                       Quality or Importance of Existing Beaverdam
                       Wetlands   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        37-38


              IX. Identification of Types of Action Costs Associated
                  With Implementing a Beaver Management Plan        . . . . .      38

               X. Preferred Participation and Responsibilities of
                  Agencies and Personnel in a Beaver Management Plan             39-42

             XI.  Listing of Management Options to Manage Beaver-
                  Abandoned Beaverdam Wetlands      . . . . . . . . . . . .        42


            XII.  Public Education and Beavers      . . . . . . . . . . . .        42

           XIII.  Proposed Immediate Action-Steps to      Implement
                  the Plan   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         42-45


            XIV.  Pertinent References     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     46-47

              XV. Appendices (Contents)    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       48-109
                       Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
                       Management Philosophy (Appendix 1)      . . . . . . .     49-50
                  2.   Title 7, Chapter 7, Section 701 -- Regulations
                       and Prohibitions Concerning Game and Fish
                       (Appendix 2)   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          51



                                            ii








                 3.  Descriptions of Selected Beaverdam-wetlands
                     Habitats in Delaware   . . . . .                       52-55
                     a. Garrisons Lake (Appendix 3):                        52-53
                     b. Paradise Alley (Appendix 4)    . . . . . . . . .      54
                     c. Masseys Pond (Appendix 5)    . . . . . . . . . .      55
                 4.  Beaver-Release Data Sheet (Appendix 6)     . . . . .     56
                 5.  List of Agencies/Organizations who have
                     reviewed the Delaware Beaver Management
                     Plan (Appendix 7)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       57
                 6.  An Overview of Beaver Trapping Seasons and
                     Control Programs in Nearby States (Appendix 8)         58-61
                 7.  Written Comments About the Plan Received from
                     Other State Agencies, Federal Agencies,
                     Private Environmental Organizations, or the
                     Public; Public Meeting (Appendix 9)   . . . . . . .    62-107
                 8.  Active Participants in the Development of
                     Delaware's Beaver Management Plan - plan
                     research and preparation, technical advice and
                     consultation, or plan review and comments
                     (Appendix 10)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    108-109










                                    LIST OF TABLES





          Table                                                          Page No.

          1.   Beaver Management Plan Participation -- Determination
               of Responsible Parties for Management Decisions
               and Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       41




          Figure                     LIST OF FIGURES

               Locations of Beaverdams in Delaware, 1991    . . . . . . .     10

          1    Statewide Locations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       11


          2    New Castle County  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       12

          3    Kent County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        13

          4    Sussex County  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       14

          5    Examples of Beaver-Flow Through Pipes Using
               Corrugated Flexible Sewer Pipe and PVC Pipes     . . . . .     35























                                        iv











                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


              Following inter-agency and public review, the Delaware
         Division of Fish and Wildlife has developed a statewide Beaver
         Management Plan (BMP) designed to promote environmental benefits
         associated with beaver activities, and to contend with socio-
         economic problems that beavers may cause. The primary goal of
         the plan is to achieve and then maintain a maximum sustainable
         population of beavers and their associated wetland habitats
         throughout Delaware, located and managed in a mannercompatible
         with other land uses and human activities. The BMP presents the
         Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control's
         management perspective concerning beavers, and reviews beaver
         biology, ecology, and their historical and current population
         status in Delaware. Because of the critical environmental values
         and functions of Delaware's freshwater wetlands, and because the
         State has lost about one-half of its non-tidal wetlands acreage
         since colonial times, the beaver's role as a beneficial environ-
         mental agent becomes even more important in today's landscape.
         However, the beaver's substantial population expansion in
         Delaware during the past 20 years, coupled with the increasing
         development and urbanization of the State's rural areas, has
         increased beaver-caused socioeconomic problems, necessitating
         formulation and implementation of a BMP.

              The environmental benefits of beaver are discussed in the
         BMP, which include: 1) enhancement, restoration or creation of
         quality fish and wildlife habitats for wetlands-dependent
         species; 2) increased biodiversity within the State's array of
         wetland types; 3) enhanced aesthetics and increased recreational
         opportunities; 4) floodwater control; and 5) improved water
         quality following reduction of dissolved nutrients and retention
         of particulate sediments that would have been transported
         downstream. Conversely, socioeconomic problems that are
         sometimes caused by beavers are also examined, focusing primarily
         on beaverdam-caused flooding problems, and on vegetation or
         timber damage or loss via cutting or girdling. These
         socioeconomic problems may affect residential, commercial or
         industrial development; agriculture; forestry; public health or
         safety; or transportation.

              The BMP addresses factors to consider in determining if
         substantial beaver-caused socioeconomic problems are occurring,
         and identifies five categories of potential beaver problems:
         1) private lands - urban/suburban/residential; 2) tax ditches and
         associated aglands; 3) public lands - conservation or
         recreational; 4) transportation - roads, highways, railways,
         airports; 5) private lands - rural (non-tax ditch). The BMP also
         examines response options that could be taken to contend with
         substantive beaver-caused problems. The response options
         include: 1) live-trapping and transfer of problem-beavers to
         carefully-selected release sites; 2) dispatch of problem-beavers,
         done by regulated contract trappers or other personnel;


                                     v










         3) implementation of a regulated trapping program open to the
         public; 4) installation of water control structures to manage
         maximum water levels at acceptable heights in beaverdam wetlands.

              The preferred participation, roles and responsibilities of
         various government agencies and personnel in implementing a BMP
         are given in the plan. The potential types of costs in
         implementing a BMP, along with recommendations for cost-shared
         activities, are provided. A listing of management options to
         manage beaver-abandoned beaverdam wetlands is also given.
         Finally, the necessity for better public education and knowledge
         about beavers and their activities, needed for the public to
         become more tolerant of beavers and thus expand the beaver's
         environmental benefits, is discussed.

              In order to implement the BMP, the following action-steps
         are recommended, dependent upon available resources:

              1)  In order to contend with excessive beaver densities and
                  reduce nuisance problems, initiate a regulated,
                  controlled trapping season open to the public. Only
                  licensed trappers could participate, using prescribed
                  methods in designated zones during specified seasons.
                  The harvest goals would be conservatively set in order
                  to avoid overharvesting, with the catch carefully
                  monitored and analyzed.

              2)  Continue a regulated "contract" trapper program to
                  address beaver problems that still remain or which
                  cannot be handled via a public open season; remedies
                  under the "contract" trapper program include dispatch or
                  live-trap and relocation.

              3)  Designate Division of Fish and Wildlife biologists to:

                  a.  Design, implement, monitor and analyze controlled
                      harvests by licensed trappers during zoned seasons
                      open to the public;

                  b.  Make technical determinations and recommendations
                      to landowners, on public and private lands, whether
                      or not a beaver complaint is a substantive problem
                      needing remedial action;

                  c.  Make technical determinations and recommendations to
                      landowners, on public and private lands, of the
                      preferred remedial actions to contend with
                      individual substantive problems;

                  d.  In order to promote the distribution or recovery of
                      beavers in suitable areas throughout Delaware which
                      do not yet have a desired population density of
                      beavers, continue a program which solicits,


                                     vi










                      evaluates and inventories potential relocation sites
                      for problem-beavers caught elsewhere in Delaware;

                  e.  Coordinate (or in some special cases supervise or
                      perform) the live-trap and relocation program for
                      problem-beavers;

                  f.  Perform casual monitoring at release sites of the
                      activities and colony success of trap-and-
                      transferred beavers;

                  g.  Help to coordinate (or in some special cases help to
                      supervise or perform) the use of structural remedies;

                  h.  Contribute to and help to maintain databanks, maps,
                      inventories, and other records necessary to run a
                      statewide beaver management program.

              4)  Using environmental criteria identified in the BMP,
                  evaluate the environmental importance or quality of
                  existing beaverdam wetlands throughout the State, done
                  in order to help determine the level of funds or effort
                  that might be allocated for treating substantive
                  socioeconomic problems that may occur at specific sites;
                  this assessment could be done in advance, or could be
                  done on a case-by-case basis when (and if) substantive
                  problems occur in association with existing beaverdam
                  wetlands.


              5)  Perform long-term evaluations of the effectiveness and
                  utility of various structural remedies (e.g. water level
                  control devices) to contend with beaver-caused problems.

              6)  Develop cost-share programs for BMP activities that are
                  desirable and suitable for the cost-share approach.

              7)  Prepare an informational brochure for distribution to
                  landowners and the general public about beavers, their
                  biology and ecology, their environmental benefits, their
                  potential socioeconomic problems, the solutions or
                  remedies to such problems, where and from whom to get
                  further help, etc.

              The target audiences for the Beaver Management Plan (in the
         form which follows) include the professional technical staff of
         the Division of Fish and Wildlife (who will have the primary
         responsibility for implementing the Plan), other technical staff
         associated with pertinent federal or state agencies charged with
         natural resource management or regulation, and technically-
         oriented policy-and-decision makers.





                                    vii














                     3E33E:2kN73M1:Z1" MPJ1W11kC?W3EM1E:Wrr IPIL.A XW



         I.   Introduction

              The Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of
         Natural Resources and Environmental Control, is the agency
         responsible for the management of beavers (Castor canadensis) in
         Delaware. The Division of Fish and Wildlife is mandated by
         Section 8005, Title 29, of the Delaware Code to protect and
          onserve Delaware's wildlife resources. The Division's management
         philosophy to implement the provisions of this statute is given
         C

         in Appendix 1. The goal for formulating a Beaver Management Plan
         is to provide guidelines and criteria for the management of
         beaver populations, on public and private lands, in Delaware.
         While this management plan is designed to be as comprehensive and
         flexible as possible, it should be considered a dynamic document
         subject to on-going review and could be modified as needed.

              Beaver have not been harvested commercially in Delaware
         since colonial times due to diminished populations caused by
         over-trapping, which almost led to their extirpation from the
         state. In recent years however, beaver populations have
         rebounded and expanded into areas of the state where their
         activities are sometimes incompatible with primary land-use
         practices. As a result, there has been an increasing number of
         landowner complaints concerning beaver activities, including the
         flooding of agriculture lands, woodlands, personal property, and
         highways, plus timber damage and cutting of ornamental trees. At
         the same time, increased beaver activity has provided
         environmentally-beneficial effects including the creation of high
         quality wetlands habitat for a variety of wetland-dependent flora
         and fauna; removal of excess dissolved nutrients; particulate
         sediment and toxicant retention; floodwater detention; and
         enhanced aesthetic values and recreational opportunities. It is
         the Department's goal to promote these environmental benefits in
         a manner compatible with other land-use practices and goals.


         Ii.   General Policy and Plan Purpose

              Beavers and their activities can provide substantial
         environmental benefits, in particular valuable fish and wildlife
         wetland habitats and improved water quality. It is the
         Department's policy to promote the establishment, expansion and
         recovery of beaver in Delaware in locations where unacceptable
         socioeconomic problems will not occur. The promotion of this
         policy will involve conflict assessment and resolution regarding
         beaver-induced environmental modifications and the socioeconomic
         interests of agriculture, forestry, highways and transportation,
         public health and safety, and industrial, commercial or









         residential development. Determining and implementing conflict
         resolutions will also incur expenses to both public and private
         sectors. However, these resolvable concerns should not outweigh
         the environmental benefits that a managed beaver population could
         provide in Delaware, and thus the Department views the beaver as
         a beneficial environmental agent.

              In order to promote a managed beaver population in Delaware,
         the Department has developed a "Beaver Management Plan" focused
         on three primary topics:

              1.   Promotion of the environmental benefits provided by
                   beavers;

              2.   Evaluation procedures and guidelines for determining
                   where and when beavers are causing unacceptable socio-
                   economic impacts;

              3.   Action procedures and guidelines for determining and
                   taking corrective measures to address unacceptable
                   socioeconomic impacts.

              The primary goal of the plan is: to achieve and then
         maintain a maximum sustainable population of beavers and their
         associated wetland habitats throughout Delaware, located and
         managed in a manner compatible with other land uses and human
         activities.


              A statewide quantification of the maximum sustainable
         population goal is not yet possible, since we do not know the
         number of remaining unoccupied sites in the State where the
         habitat is suitable for beaver colonization and for which beaver
         activities will not create substantive socioeconomic problems.
         The Plan's intent is to eventually reestablish beaver colonies
         throughout all of Delaware's watercourses, wherever beaver find
         suitable habitats and where they do not cause substantive
         problems. When all such sites are eventually occupied, whether
         this maximum occupancy be on a local, regional or statewide
         basis, then beaver population growth beyond maximum levels of
         distribution and abundance (i.e. beyond maximum sustainable
         populations on local, regional or statewide bases) must be
         proactively curtailed. It is not necessary nor desirable that
         100% of all potentially inhabitable sites must be colonized (on
         local, regional or statewide bases) before this curtailment
         begins, since it is desirable to maintain (or create) temporarily
         vacant areas which may eventually be colonized by future beaver
         generations.

         III. Biology and Ecology

         1)   Description

              The beaver (Castor canadensis) is a member of the order
         Rodentia and is the largest rodent in North America. An adult


                                     2








         beaver usually weighs between 35-70 pounds and can be almost four
         feet long. The beaver's coat consists of underfur and long guard
         hairs giving it a course appearance, and can vary in color from
         yellowish-brown to reddish to almost black. Two prominent
         characteristics of beaver are a paddlelike tail and large
         incisors which grow continuously. The beaver's skeleton is
         heavier than animals of similar size in order to withstand the
         stress of gnawing and cutting of hardwoods. The beaver is
         specialized for aquatic life, with its hind legs and feet, webbed
         toes and flattened tail all adapted for swimming. The nostrils
         are closeable, the ears have valves that can close, and skin
         flaps seal the mouth leaving the incisors exposed for carrying
         tree branches underwater.


         2) Range and Habitat

              Beaver can be found throughout most of North America from
         the Atlantic to the Pacific (including most of Alaska) and from
         Canada to Florida. It is believed that the beaver's historic
         range included all areas of North America that contained plants
         and water suitable for its winter survival. Typical habitats
         include rivers, impoundments, lakes, streams and tributaries that
         have adequate flow for damming to provide seasonably-stable water
         levels. Although beaver can occur in steep, rocky habitats, they
         prefer areas of relatively flat terrain.

              Beaver habitat must contain all of the following: (1) a
         stable aquatic habitat which provides adequate water; (2) a
         channel gradient of less than 15%, with less than 6% ideal; and
         (3) quality food species present in sufficient quantity (Williams


         3) Dens, Lodges, Dams and Other Structures

              Beavers live in excavated bank dens, or build dome-sha-ped
         lodges constructed of limbs or branches'from felled trees and
         saplings and then caulked with mud. A bank den or lodge has at
         least two entrances and may have four or more. Bank dens are
         often dug and inhabited when beavers first move into an area,
         occupied as they build their dams and lodges. Additional bank
         dens are often built to provide strategic locations where they
         can rest or take refuge. In some areas where water levels are
         already adequately deep and stable, or conversely where streams
         or rivers are shallow but subject to severe floods, dams are not
         built and beavers sometimes live their entire lives in bank dens.
         Beavers living in pond lodges occupy a dry chamber above
         waterline, which is created by cutting away brush or sticks in the
         chamber's ceiling and trampling the material under foot. Lodges
         can be constructed in the center of ponds as island houses, or
         are sometimes built along pond edges, usually overtop the den of
         a bank burrow which has been abandoned as water level rose.
         Lodges can rise up to 7 feet above pond bottom, and can be more
         than 14 feet in diameter.




                                     3








              The length and height of beaverdams, made from limbs, branches,
         stones, mud and other debris, depends on what is necessary to
         stop the flow of water and create a pond. Beavers are constantly
         working on either increasing the size of their dams or on
         maintaining or repairing what they've built. Beaver dams are
         designed to maintain water levels above lodge entrances and to
         provide open water for easy swimming, needed to expand and allow
         safe access to food sources. Beaverdams usually average less
         that 6 feet high, but in narrow, steep-sided vallyes have been
         found to be up,to 15 feet high. Thickness of a dam's base is
         usually from 8-18 feet, while width at the top is from only a few
         inches up to 3 feet. The length of dams is very variable,
         ranging from only several feet long when blocking culverts,
         underpasses or narrow corridors, up to over 2000 feet long in
         some western meadow valleys. A single beaver colony may build
         one or more secondary dams within a few hundred feet of the
         primary dam, in downstream or upstream locations, relieving the
         main dam from excessive water pressures, and providing additional
         waterborne access to new feeding areas.

              Beavers are also well known for excavating travel canals
         (inundated trails) connecting their dam-formed pools or to
         provide access to feeding sites. Another highly visible
         structure created by beavers is a food pile, composed of unpeeled
         limbs, branches and twigs, deposited near the lodge to provide a
         winter food supply.

         4)   Food Habits

              Beaver will eat the leaves, twigs and bark of most species
         of trees and woody plants, but prefer species such as aspen,
         poplar or, in Delaware, red maple, cottonwood, willow, alder,
         sassafras, sweetgum, blackgum, dogwood, holly, oaks and even
         pine. An ideal food situation for woody vegetation would be a
         stand of preferred food trees (e.g. aspen, poplar, willow,
         cottonwood, alder) within 100 yards of a watercourse, having a
         size from 1-6 inches dbh with 40-60% canopy closure (Allen,
         1982). Beaver also feed on herbaceous and aquatic plants, vines,
         roots, the fruit of woody plants, and sometimes even agricultural
         crops such as corn or soybeans. Aquatic vegetation such as
         arrowhead or duck potato (Sagittaria spp.), duckweed (Lemna
         spp.), pondweed (Potamogeton spp.), water weed (Elodea spp.), and
         water lilies (Nymphaea spp.) are preferred food when available.
         If present in adequate amounts, the roots and rhizomes of water
         lilies provide satisfactory winter foods, and may result in
         little cutting or caching of woody materials for winter sources.
         When one considers that beaver have even colonized irrigation
         ditches in the Great Basin Desert of Nevada, it is apparent that
         they are able to eat a wide variety of foods.

              Most trees for food, shelter or dams are felled within 30
         yards of the lodge; however, beaver will travel and cut choice
         foods up to 100-200 yards away. Beavers appear to prefer



                                    4








         herbaceous vegetation, when available, over woody vegetation
         during all seasons of the year (Jenkins 1981).

         5) Wetlands Successional Cycles

              When food supplies at a site become too scarce, or when
         beavers cannot raise their dams to create new waterborne access
         to new food sources, beavers will abandon the site. When this
         happens, deterioration of the dam eventually occurs and water
         levels drop, causing the beaverdam wetlands to go through a
         successional wetland series from permanently-inundated wetlands
         to seasonally-inundated wetlands to temporarily-inundated
         wetlands. This successional series, after several decades, may
         culminate in a wet meadow with a shallow central channel. As
         woody growth recolonizes the perimeter of the meadow and
         encroaches across the open meadow itself, food conditions may
         again become suitable for beaver to return to the site and
         construct a new dam, starting the wetlands successional cycle
         anew.


              The wetlands successional cycle created by beaver activities
         forms a complex of wetlands types, with the wetland type at any
         specific site being a transitory stage, different than what
         existed a decade before and destined to be different ten years
         later. At any one time in a region where beavers have been
         established for several decades, there will be a mosaic of
         wetland types of different ages, forming a diversity of wetlands
         habitats. Thus, beavers and their activities are significant
         agents in promoting biodiversity, creating a series of ephemeral
         wetland habitats critical to the perpetuation of many endangered,
         threatened or rare plant and animal species. Active or abandoned
         beaverdam wetlands in Delaware are important quality components
         of the State's freshwater wetlands array, contributing to both
         the State's proposed Type I wetlands (unique biotic assemblages)
         and proposed Type II wetlands (moderately-wet to very-wet
         wetlands), plus restoring or expanding proposed Type III wetlands
         (marginally-wet wetlands) in peripheral areas.

         6) Reproduction and Development

              Beavers are monogamous and are believed to pair for life.
         They are sexually mature when they are 1-1/2 years old, but their
         first litter usually occurs at age three. Breeding usually
         occurs between January and March with a subsequent gestation
         period of about 100-110 days. Copulation takes place either in
         the water or in the lodge or bank den. Litter size varies with
         the age of the female and quality of habitat. A typical litter
         is three to four kits with a range from one to nine, and they are
         born fully-furred with eyes open. The female produces one litter
         per year, with the kits typically born in May, and the mother
         nurses the young for approximately 6-8 weeks. At birth a kit
         weighs about one pound, reaches 4 pounds when weaned, and grows
         to 15 pounds by the start of its first winter.



                                    5








              The young are usually displaced from the colony by the
         adults after approximately two years of age, in March following
         their second overwintering in the lodge or den, in advance of the
         arrival of the year's new litter. Thus, during mid-winter within
         most colonies, there's usually the two adult parents, a few
         yearlings (sub-adults) from the litter two years before, and a
         few older kits from the current year's litter. The displacement
         of offspring from the colony after two years of development
         causes the geographical expansion of the population, which
         sometimes leads to new socioeconomic problems as the dispersed
         young adults build new dams, mate and establish new colonies.
         While the dispersion of some young up to 150 miles from parental
         colonies has been documented, average emigration distances range
         from 5-10 stream miles. Another type of displacement, but which
         is voluntary in nature, is when the male parent leaves the lodge
         after the kits are born, staying out until the kits are fully
         weaned. During this time, the male takes up solitary residence
         in a bank den, but remains within the colony's habitat, working
         on dams, food piles, and the lodge.

         7) Population Structure and Density

              Based upon population data of trapped beavers from
         widespread areas across North America, and disregarding trapping
         biases, the mean percentages of kits (young-of-the-year), sub-
         adults (yearlings), and adults (two years and older) in an
         average beaver population is 30t, 23%, and 47%, respectively.
         Sex ratio in beavers is almost even, with total population
         averages from widespread areas yielding a male:female = 105:100.

              Not surprisingly, reported population densities for beaver
         are widely variable, dependent upon habitat quality and harvest
         or mortality factors. Beavers are highly territorial, and will
         mark their territories with scent mounds. Beaver colony
         territories are distinct and non-overlapping, with usually no
         more than one colony per 0.5 miles of stream length. Densities
         are reported either as number of colonies per unit area or per
         length of stream. Examples of the former are as follows: colony
         densities in Algonquin Park, Ontario = 0.98-1.97 colonies per
         square mile; in the MacKenzie Delta, Northwest Territories = 1.01
         colonies per square mile. Examples of the latter are: colonies
         along streams in New Brunswick = 0.14-0.22 colonies per stream
         mile; in Alaska = 0.56-0.77 colonies per stream mile. The
         typical densities of colonies in favorable habitat range from 1-2
         per square mile. Densities greater than 1.98 colonies per stream
         mile are estimated to exceed saturation maximums in New York,
         while saturation is considered to occur in Alberta at only 0.64
         colonies per stream mile, but saturation doesn't occur in Alabama
         until densities exceed 3.0 colonies per stream mile. The mean
         number of beavers per colony, based on survey data from 22 states
         and provincesf- averages 5.2 animals per colony; an extreme number
         of animals per colony would be 12 individuals.




                                     6









         8) Mortality

              Beaver have a normal life expectancy of about 10 years in
         the wild, although captive animals may live to 21. Numerous
         predators affect the beaver throughout its range. In wilderness
         areas these include man, coyotes, bobcats, wolves, bears and
         wolverine. In Delaware, the major predator on adult beavers is
         man, but both feral and domestic dogs may also kill adults.
         Young kits may be killed by river otter or mink. In addition,
         there can be territorial conflicts between beaver and otter.
         Tularemia, a bacterial disease, has caused mortality and
         decimation of beaver populations in the Rocky Mountain and
         northern states, but is not common in beavers in the southeast.
         Giardiasis, a protozoan parasite, is carried by beavers but does
         not appear to severely affect them; however, excretion of this
         parasite by infected beavers appears to have contaminated water
         bodies over a wide geographical range (e.g. Maine, Texas), and
         may lead to outbreaks of the disease in humans who drink
         untreated surface water. In some regions, snow melt and heavy
         spring rains can cause flooding, which may destroy lodges and
         drown beavers under the ice. Starvation, particularly in
         northern high latitudes near the range edge, can be a mortality
         factor.



         IV. Status and Trends of Beaver in Delaware

         1)   Historical Distribution of Beaver in North America, the mid-
              Atlantic, and Delaware

              Beaver were essential providers of fur, food and other
         important products in early settlement days. Beavers ranged over
         all of boreal and temperate North America, as long as there was
         acceptable habitat. Before European settlement of North America,
         the total continental beaver population was estimated to be 60-
         400-million individuals. It is probable that almost all-st--reams
         or creeks on the Delmarva Peninsula during pre-colonial times
          ere staircase-series of beaverdam-regulated flowages. However,
         intensive trapping by early settlers reduced their populations to
         alarmingly low levels. Extensive removal of beavers in North
         America began in the early 16001s. For example, 10,000 beaver
         per year were estimated to be harvested in Maï¿½-s-achusetts-and
         Connecticut during the 16201s, and 80,000 beaver per year were
         estimated to be taken from the Hudson River valley and western
         New York during the 1630's. Beaver were probably almost
         extirpated in Delaware by the mid-18001s. The current population
         of beavers in North America is estimated to be  between 6-12-
         million individuals. Gregg (194-8-)--d-u-rfiina-r-iz-4e--d--the-naE-i@on-a-l-
         situation when he stated that "the ground swell of conservation
         consciousness brought c-*_ttention to the beaver as a vanishing
         species, and due to widespread interest, stringent or total
         protection was provided by law almost everywhere in the United
         States by World War I."



                                     7









              An indication of the widespread distribution and historical
         abundance of beaver in Delaware can be gleaned by examining the
         placenames for Delaware's streams, creeks and other geographical
         features. In New Castle County, there are two streams named
         Beaver Branch, plus a Beaver Creek; Beaver Valley is an area near
         Wilmington. Kent County has three streams named Beaverdam
         Branch, plus two Beaverdam Ditches and one Beaver Gut Ditch.
         Sussex County has three streams named Beaverdam Branch, plus one
         Beaver Dam Run, a Beaverdam Creek, and a Beaverdam Ditch. One
         may also find in Sussex County a Beaverdam Bridge, a Beaverdam
         Cemetary, and an area called Beaver Dam Heights.

              An illustration of how rapidly beaver can repopulate an area
         or region, when they are protected and allowed to occupy the
         suitable habitats that remain, is provided in Pennsylvania, where
         beavers were essentially extirpated by the early 1900's. Between
         1917 and 1920, 28 pairs of beavers were imported from the upper
         Great Lakes region by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and
         released in suitable habitats. By 1930, over 1500 known colonies
         were documented in 49 Pennsylvania'counties. During the first
         trapping season in Pennsylvania in 1934, 6400 beavers were taken
         (Hilfiker, 1991).

              In 1935, the Delaware Board of Game and Fish Commissioners
         purchased three pair of beaver from Maine in an attempt to
         restore beaver in Delaware, and released one pair in each
         Delaware county (New Castle, Kent and Sussex). By 1943, it was
         estimated that these initial releases had increased to a total of
         24 individuals. Additional beaver have also since moved into
         Delaware from Maryland, where populations were not historically
         reduced to the very low levels which occurred in Delaware.

              The Division of Fish and-Wildlife's Wildlife Section started
         to respond, as a non-mandated public service, to beaver-problem
         complaints in the early 19701s. In 1972, the Wildlife Section
         heard only one public complaint, and received four public
         complaints in 1973; throughout the remainder-of the 19701s,
         beaver complaints remained at similar low levels per year. When
         complaints were addressed by the Wildlife Section during the
         19701s, the typical response was to live-trap problem-beavers and
         transfer them for release in Maryland, or to dispatch problem-
         beavers on-site. The Division's Enforcement Section started to
         respond to beaver complaints in the early 1980's, when problems
         started becoming more numerous. Simultaneous with the 1980
         decision to transfer responsibility for handling problem-beavers
         to the Enforcement Section, the Division made a policy decision
         to live-trap and transfer for in-state release (at suitable
         sites) as many of the problem-beavers as practical, done in order
         to promote the environmental benefits of beaver activities in
         Delaware. Concomitant with this decision was a realization that
         the Division would also have to be as responsive as practical to
         public complaints about beaver nuisances, whether the problems be
         real or only perceived.



                                    8









              Beaver populations in Delaware greatly increased
         and expanded throughout the 19801s, and have now reached a level
         of nuisance taxing the capability of the Division's staff and
         resources to provide satisfactory responses. In 1990, the
         Division's enforcement officers spent 550 man-hours attending to
         beaver problems in New Castle County and-northern Kent County.
         Also in 1990, Division enforcement officers spent at least 150
         man-hours attending to 28 probl'em-beavers in southern Kent County
         and Sussex County, which was time withdrawn from their
         enforcement duties and responsibilities. The necessity for this
         level of response effort not only reflects an increase in beaver
         numbers, but also the rapid development and urbanization of
         formerly rural areas in Delaware, creating more beaver-human
         conflicts.


         2) Current Status of Beaver in Delaware

              Beaver are currently protected in Delaware by state statute,
         and have been protected by law since the late 1920's. By Section
         701, Chapter 7, Title 7 of the Delaware Code (see Appendix 2),
         beavers are considered game animals and thus protected. Limited
         trapping of beavers, from December 15 through March 15, done only
         under a special permit issued by the Division of Fish and
         Wildlife, may be done by landowners (or their agents) who have
         beaver problems or damage on their property. Each landowner's
         name (and any contracted trapper) must be listed on the permit,
         and all beavers caught must be presented to the Division for pelt
         tagging. At other times of the year, problem-beavers may still
         be trapped under a special animal damage control permit,
         applicable to many species, which is also issued by the Division
         of Fish and Wildlife. Additionally, as an ad hoc service
         function to citizens complaining about beaver nuisance problems,
         Division of Fish and Wildlife enforcement officers (or their
         agents) have also trapped and removed problem-beavers.

         3)   Current Distribution and Population of Beaver in Delaware

              An initial survey was conducted in 1990 in order to
         determine the locations of existing dams and lodges in Delaware
         (see Figures 1-4 for beaverdam sites). There are at least 126
         active beaverdams in Delaware, yielding an estimated total
         statewide population of 750-1500 beavers. This number is based
         on the premise that each "beaverdam wetland" has at least one
         colony, although each designated site may have more than one dam
         in close proximity to the main dam. Using an average value of
         5.2 beavers per colony yields 655 beavers in the known 126
         sites. An extra 95 beaver were added to the total to bring the
         minimum estimation to 750 beavers statewide, to account for
         overlooked or unknown colonies, particularly in Sussex County
         (the extra 95 beaver would represent an additional 18 colonies).
         The minimum estimation was then doubled to yield a maximum
         statewide estimation, based primarily on subjective knowledge
         that "bank beavers" are also a substantial component of
         Delaware's population, but how substantial is truly a


                                    9









                                      Figures 1-4


                      Locations of Beaverdams in Delaware, 1991



         Figure 1        Statewide Locations             (126 sites)
         Figure 2        New Castle County                (33 sites)
         Figure 3        Kent County                      (71 sites)

         Figure 4        Sussex County                    (22 sites)







               The number of beaverdams in Sussex County, particularly in
         the western and southern portions, is probably an underesti-
         mation, since these areas are relatively remote and the
         frequency of beaver-complaints is low.































                                      10



































                                           T










                                                 r






















                                                           CL

















                                                            All

                                              Figure 1.   Statewide Locations

                                                       11



       - - WIN amm @ @ m w so m m m m m m m m




                  --0"


                    * ** A Wilml ton


                   ***       NEW CASTLE .
  K>                           BEAVER SITES

                                   (1990)

                         F-,-@




                                              I



















                     Ficksurftl



                                          @@Mmm mom mwmm..M@m



                                                                                       KENT COUNTY
                                                                                         BEAVER SITES

                                                                                                   (1990)


                                                                     Dover





















                                                           Figure 3



             - -.- ==name= mom now*               @


                                  SUSSEX COUNTY

                                    BEAVER SITES

                                        (1990)









  -P
                          A Georgetown

    **         I
                                              ZO
                                        I



                                             ai@@
                         Figure 4









         guesstimate. Beaver activities control the hydrological regimes
         on at least a few thousand acres of Delaware's remaining 130,000-
         150,000 acres of non-tidal wetlands. Survey data will be updated
         periodically in order to document changes in trends and
         distributions throughout the state. The frequency and methods
         for survey updating will be developed later.

         4)   Future Population Growth of Beavers in Delaware

              The population expansion of beavers in Delaware has been
         substantial throughout the 19801s. However, the amount of
         suitable sites for future population expansion has undoubtedly
         declined since the early 19801s, although potential sites still
         exist, particularly in rural areas of Sussex County and southern
         or eastern Kent County. Potential suitable sites for future
         colonization (or release) are discussed in more detail in Section
         VIII-lA and 1B.

              Because of the population expansion throughout the 19801s,
         it is probable that the rate of population growth is now slowing
         as more and more suitable sites have been occupied. However, the
         total number of beavers will continue to grow for the foreseeable
         future, creating more socioeconomic conflicts caused by a still
         burgeoning total population and dwindling suitable habitats.
         Adults living in the habitats where beavers do not cause socio-
         economic problems will continue to produce offspring, which may
         cause problems following the offspring's emigration from parental
         colonies.


              A quantified estimation of future beaver populations in
         Delaware is somewhat difficult to predict, but if we make several
         assumptions, estimations can be generated based on projections of
         past trends. Prior to the rapid expansion of beavers in Delaware
         during the 19801s, a liberal estimation of the number of active
         beaver colonies in the state during the late 1970's would be 20.
         Thus, for the 11-year period from 1980 through 1990, the number
         of beaver colonies would have increased by 106 (to today's
         estimate of 126 colonies statewide), an average increase of 9.6
         colonies per year. However, this average rate of increase is
         misleading, since what we really need to know is the realized
         rate of increase (r) per year, because accelerated population
         growth is an exponential function. A yearly population increase
         of about 16.7% (r=0.167) from 1980 through 1990 would increase
         the number of colonies from 20 to 126 during this period.

              Making the assumption that the annual rate of future
         increase will be an exponential function with r = 0.167 (which
         assumes that future reproduction and mortality rates will not
         change from the past, that the availability of suitable habitat
         for future colonization will be the same as in the past, and that
         our past management policies and practices will continue), then
         some projections of future beaver populations in Delaware can be
         made. Using an average colony size of 5.2 beavers per colony,
         beavers in Delaware could increase from a very conservative


                                    15








         estimate of 655 animals (126 colonies) in 1990 to: 775 animals
         (149 colonies) in 1991; 915 animals (176 colonies) in 1992; 1508
         animals (290 colonies) by 1995; and 3479 animals (669 colonies)
         by 2000. It is quite probable that the limited carrying capacity
         of suitable habitats in modern Delaware will never permit such an
         expansion, but as the modern carrying capacity is approached
         (whatever it may be), we can only expect that beaver-human
         conflicts and associated socioeconomic problems will continue to
         increase.


              An interesting estimation to make, based upon available
         density estimates from remaining wild areas in the East, is that
         Delaware's approximate 1892 square miles of non-tidal lands could
         have supported over 10,000 beavers in pre-colonial times.
         Today's beaver population, which has rebounded since the early
         19801s, probably represents less than 10% of the State's historic
         abundance.


              The most effective control for an overly abundant beaver
         population, and often the only practical control, is a trapping
         (dispatch) program. Experience in other regions suggests that an
         annual harvest of one-third of the estimated population can
         maintain beaver populations or even allow a slow increase in high
         quality habitats (Denny, 1952). Various methods to achieve this
         harvest goal, while avoiding overharvesting, include trapping
         about 1.5 beavers per colony per year, or trapping each colony
         more intensively but on a 2-3 year rotational cycle, or on
         completely trapping-out some colonies for a 4-5 year period while
         allowing others to remain undisturbed.

         5)   Examples of Beaverdam Wetlands Habitat in Delaware

              Habitat evaluation surveys were conducted at 3 selected
         beaver colonies in Delaware during 1990 (Appendices 3-5). Data
         collected included information on vegetative cover, fish and
         wildlife species present, dimensions of dam, number of lodges or
         bank dens, depth of water upstream and downstream of the dam, and
         approximate age of the dam (assessed via contacts with landowners
         or field staff, or by presence of fresh cuttings). Information
         collected will help determine positive and negative aspects of
         beaver activities at the selected sites, will also be valuable in
         assessing other existing sites, and will also be useful for
         determining desirable features of future release sites as beaver
         complaints and concerns are addressed. The criteria for
         determining a beaver nuisance site vs. a non-problem area were
         initially examined at these 3 sites. In some cases an area
         impacted by beaver causes problems that are unacceptable to the
         landowner, and corrective actions need to be taken. Each of the
         3 sites was evaluated to determine whether it is a problem site
         or not, based upon complaints received, flooding potential, and
         on-site and adjacent land-use practices.





                                    16









         Site #1 - Garrisons Lake


              The first site that was evaluated is above Garrisons Lake
         (Kent County) (Appendix 3). A pair of Maine beavers were
         introduced into this area in 1935 (Bonwill and Owens 1939). They
         were released into the Willis Branch which flows into Garrisons
         Lake. This site was selected for habitat evaluation because it
         probably represents a site having no apparent socioeconomic
         problems caused by beaver activity.

         Site #2 - Paradise Alley

              The second site chosen for evaluation is located south of
         the town of Felton (Kent County) on Paradise Alley Road (Appendix
         4). This area has some beaver-caused problems, including
         flooding of private property where the landowner perceives a loss
         of commercial timber, cutting of ornamental trees, and the
         potential "undermining" of a train trestle. A water control pipe
         was installed through the dam to attempt to maintain a constant
         desirable water level; however, beaver effectively plugged the
         pipe, causing it to fail. (This led to a conclusion that further
         research needs to be done on different types of beaverdam water
         control pipes - see structural remedies, Section VIII-3).


         Site #3 - Massey's Pond

              The third site for evaluation is currently having no
         apparent adverse impacts due to beaver activity. The location of
         the site is in a existing millpond called Massey's Pond (Kent
         County) (Appendix 5). Beaver have built a lodge and are using
         the pond, but they do not appear to be building any dams.

         V.   Environmental and Socioeconomic Benefits of Beavers and
              Beaverdam Wetlands


              Beaver activities provide many environmental benefits, with
         particular emphasis on fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and
         aesthetics, flood control, and water quality. In terms of
         improving the quality and quantity of Delaware's freshwater wet-
         lands, there is probably no more cost effective agent to enhance,
         restore or create wetlands environs than the beaver. A beaver
         management program, which promotes beaver colonization where
         socioeconomically feasible, can probably do as much as man's
         efforts (if not more) to improve Delaware's freshwater wetlands,
         achieved at a fraction of the cost. Reestablishment of the
         historical distribution and abundance of beaver in Delaware, done
         wherever socioeconomically feasible, would be a very desirable
         habitat management goal and tool.

         1)   Quality Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Habitat

              Beavers are adept at modifying their environment to suit
         their needs. Beaver activity also enhances, restores or creates


                                    17








         wetlands habitat valuable for a diversity of wetiand-dependent
         flora and fauna. Many species of waterbirds, such as grebes,
         wood ducks, black ducks, mallards, teals, coots, gallinules,
         kingfishers, herons, egrets, bitterns, and rails, benefit from
         beaverdam wetlands, using these wetlands for breeding, nesting,
         brood rearing, feeding, or migratory resting. Other birds such
         as woodpeckers, swallows, woodcock, snipe, red-winged blackbirds,
         and several species of warblers and sparrows find beaverdam
         wetlands to be suitable nesting or feeding habitats. Fishes in
         Delaware such as minnows, shiners, chubs, bullheads, madtoms,
         darters, and sunfishes are associated with the deeper pools of
         beaverdam wetlands. Aquatic invertebrates such as snails,
         mussels, clams, crayfishes, and immature and adult forms of
         numerous aquatic insect species can be abundant in the shallow
         waters of Delaware's beaverdam wetlands. Many species of frogs,
         toads, salamanders, water snakes, and aquatic turtles are
         provided with quality habitat in Delaware by beaver activities.
         In addition to beavers, other Delaware mammals frequently found
         in beaverdam wetlands include muskrats, mink, raccoon, and river
         otter. Beaverdam wetlands may also support rare and endangered
         species of plants and animals (see discussion of wetlands
         successional cycles in Section 111-5).

              Beaver in many cases convert marginally-wet wetlands with
         temporary or short-seasonal hydrologic regimes into more
         functionally valuable, wetter habitats having extended or
         permanent surface inundation. Quite often timber of low
         commercial value is converted by beaver-caused inundation into
         dead standing timber important to species such as woodpeckers and
         nesting wood ducks, hooded mergansers, tree swallows, bluebirds,
         screech owls, kestrels, and other cavity nesters using abandoned
         woodpecker holes. However, trees of commercial value are
         sometimes also killed by beaver-caused inundations, so the
         creation of quality habitat for cavity-nesting birds may
         sometimes involve undesirable socioeconomic costs- For example,
         swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor) trees may be killed by long-
         term flooding; this species has a very high commercial value for
         domestic veneers and cooperage, and is Also sought by Europeans
         and Asians as a substitute for true white oak (Quercus alba)
         (T.A. Kaden, pers. comm.).

              An in-depth example of the importance of beaverdam wetlands
         for quality wildlife habitat is provided by the black duck (Anas
         rubripes), which is a species of special concern in Delaware and
         within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture of the North American
         Waterfowl Management Plan. Beaver ponds are preferred habitats
         for black ducks throughout their range, and account for a major
         portion of black ducks produced in eastern Canada and New
         England. For example, beaver ponds in New Brunswick are
         estimated to produce 9,000-11,000 black duck broods annually
         (each brood typically has 8-10 ducklings). Although beaver ponds
         in the Northeast are now much more numerous than in the mid-
         Atlantic region and represent a major portion of the available
         breeding habitat, such habitat type use to be found throughout


                                    18








         the black duck's breeding range, which extends southward to
         northeastern North Carolina. The loss of beaverdam wetlands in
         the mid-Atlantic has undoubtedly played a role in the black
         duck's population decline.

              The importance of beaverdam wetlands as black duck breeding
         habitat varies with age of the ponds. Generally, the most
         productive breeding sites for black ducks are on active beaver
         ponds less than 3 years old. It may be that older beaver ponds,
         as in older man-made impoundments, provide fewer invertebrates
         and other foods important to breeding waterfowl and their broods.
         Thus, establishing new sites and reactivating drained or old
         ponds, courtesy of new beaver activity, could significantly
         increase black duck breeding habitat. Black ducks have been
         observed in Delaware's beaverdam wetlands, but the black duck's
         current frequency and intensity of use of this habitat type has
         not been quantified in Delaware.

         2) Recreation and Aesthetics

              Beaverdam wetlands provide interesting areas for nature
         study, photography, and other forms of outdoor recreation in
         aesthetically-pleasing surroundings, as well as new or increased
         opportunities for hunting, fishing or trapping.

         3)   Flood Control

              Beaverdams, and the wetlands that they create, slow
         downstream water movement and allow for a more controlled release
         of floodwaters. This reduces erosion of stream beds, decreases
         downstream flooding, and allows dammed water to be absorbed by
         the soil, raising groundwater levels. Higher groundwater levels
         may stimulate crop growth in some soils, especially where beaver
         are active in tax ditches near agricultural fields. Beaver ponds
         may also serve as a limited source of water for irrigation
         activities. However, the current role of beaverdam wetlands in
         Delaware for flood control and water supply has not been
         quantified.

         4)   Water Quality Effects - Dissolved Nutrients and Particulate
              Sediments


              Beaver ponds serve as settling basins for waterborne
         particulates and as filters for removing dissolved nutrients
         (e.g. run-off from agricultural fields). Emergent and submergent
         aquatic vegetation in beaver-created wetlands can substantially
         remove excess dissolved nutrients from ponded water. Dennis
         Whigman of the Smithsonian Institution recently compiled an
         unpublished review of the impacts of shallow freshwater
         impoundments on water quality. In Whigman's review, he cites
         studies of beaver-influenced systems published by Robert Naiman
         and colleagues from 1984-1987. Their research focused on
         ecosystem processes, community structure, and carbon dynamics
         (including production of invertebrates and fishes) in beaverdam


                                     19









         wetlands.


              The main conclusions of the Naiman et al. studies in
              beaverdam wetlands were as follows:

              a.   Low-order streams (Strahler orders 1-5) have a low
                   processing efficiency, high storage capacity, and high
                   export of carbon. The low order streams act as
                   important organic carbon sources for consumers in
                   downstream areas.


              b.   Microbial production was relatively constant across all
                   stream orders indicating that available carbon was
                   relatively constant in different stream orders.

              C.   Most of the carbon that is transported is in the form
                   of dissolved organic carbon.

              d.   The presence of beaver impoundments resulted in greater
                   amounts of dissolved organic carbon export per unit area.

              e.   Beaver impoundments result in an increase in stream
                   stability, retention capacity, and processing
                   efficiency of drainage systems.

              The findings of Naiman et al. indicate that beaverdam
         wetlands, in comparison to sl_re@i_ms and adjacent riparian habitats
         that are not dammed and flooded, function differently. In net
         terms of overall water quality, downstream water having passed
         through a beaverdam wetlands has a more desirable composition
         than downstream water which has not traversed beaverdam environs.
         The amount of sediment retained within beaverdam wetlands can be
         very substantial, amounting in volume to 350-500 times the volume
         of wood in the dam. For example, a small beaverdam consisting of
         10 cubic yards of wood can retain (throughout the life of the
         site as an active beaver colony) up to 5000 cubic yards of
         sediment, preventing this potential sediment load from running
         downstream to ponds, lakes or open estuaries.

              Beaver activities also substantially change the total
         amounts of carbon inputs, carbon standing stocks, and carbon
         outputs. Beaverdam wetlands are more efficient for retaining and
         processing organic carbon; little material, relative to the
         amount received, is transported downstream. The standing stock
         of carbon in an undammed wetlands may turnover (i.e. be replaced
         or passed through the system) up to 7 times faster than in a
         beaverdam wetlands. Conversely, the standing stock of carbon in
         a beaverdam wetlands may be up to 20 times greater than an
         undammed wetlands, providing a large reserve of carbon and other
         nutrients needed for ecosystem stability. This nutrient pool is
         manifested in an increase in the total density and biomass of
         aquatic invertebrates in beaverdam wetlands. While there are
         species shifts of aquatic invertebrates in beaverdam wetlands
         from predominantly shredders and scrapers (in undammed streams)


                                     20









         to collectors and predators (in beaver ponds), the total number
         of species stays similar, and both organism density and biomass
         per unit area increases 2-5 times in beaverdam habitats.

              Finally, beaverdam wetlands help to reduce the downstream
         transport of dissolved nutrients, helping to reduce
         eutrophication problems in receiving waters when dissolved
         nutrients become excessive. For example, increases in flooded
         land caused by beaverdam blockage increase the lateral extent of
         anaerobic surficial layers, which helps to reduce (via
         denitrification to atmospheric nitrogen) nitrate and nitrite
         loads flowing into beaverdam wetlands, reducing downstream
         transport of these dissolved nitrogen forms. Increases occur in
         available soil nitrogen as a result of flooding, but this is
         primarily in the form of ammonia, which is absorbed by rooted
         macrophytes or anaerobic microorganisms, or may be immobilized
         onto negatively charged soil particles, or may diffuse into the
         thin, upper aerobic soil layer, where it might be nitrified and
         then rapidly exposed to denitrification in a nearby anaerobic
         zone, or it might be volatilized directly to the atmosphere.

         5) Summary of Attributes

              The following synopsis of beaver activities and their
         environmental benefits is quoted from Hilfiker (1991):

                 "The beaver is a remarkable animal. No creature
              except man surpasses him in his ability to change his
              environment to suit his special needs. He builds dams,
              maintains ponds, clears roadways, digs canals, and
              conducts extensive logging and lumbering operations.
              These things he does in order to survive, but the dams
              he builds spread out flood waters, slow them down, and
              reduce their capacity to do damage downstream. The
              ponds store water against times of scarcity and act as
              settling basins for silt carried downstream during
              periods of high water. The clearings around the ponds
              let in light and create edge conditions. Wherever
              beavers build their ponds, a vast variety of living
              things are attracted to them as iron filings are drawn
              to a magnet."


         VI.  Socioeconomic/Envirorunental Problems Caused by Beavers

         1)   Flooding Problems

              Beaver activity may cause serious flooding in low-lying
         areas, particularly in areas with minimal lateral relief. This
         can result in residential, commercial or industrial property
         damage; damage to roads, railways or airports; loss of
         agricultural crop production; and loss of commercial timber
         stands.




                                     21








              In the State of Delaware, many agricultural problems are
         related to poor drainage or flooding. The tax ditches which
         border many agricultural fields are designed to drain wet areas
         to improve the capability for cultivation. Beavers sometimes
         build their dams in these ditches, causing water to back up,
         flooding the fields. The damming of these ditches also
         interferes with normal water flow, causing slow drainage, which
         can result in reduced crop production. The Delaware Forestry
         Section (Delaware Department of Agriculture) also has concerns
         about commercial timber loss due to beaver-induced flooding and
         tree girdling. Beaver activities may also result in damming-up
         highway culverts and railroad right-of-ways, or the flooding of
         residential yards and homes. Overall, flooding is probably the
         primary problem related to beaver activities.

              The areas flooded by beaver can sometimes create breeding
         habitat for nuisance and potentially health-hazardous mosquitoes.
         However, in most cases mosquito production problems may actually
         be reduced, since the alternately wet-dry habitats required for
         egg-deposition and larval maturation of many pestiferous,
         temporary-pool breeding mosquitoes (e.g. Aedes spp.) may be
         usurped by beaver-caused permanent inundation. Mosquito species
         that will breed in permanent standing water (e.g. Culex spp.;
         Anopheles spp.) typically do not fly as far as temporary-pool
         breeding mosquitoes when in search of blood meals, and the larval
         populations of permanent-water breeding species are often kept in
         check by larvivorous fishes resident in beaver ponds.

              Many rare or endangered plant species may be sensitive to
         excessive inundation, and hence killed by prolonged flooding of
         an area. Ironically, many of Delaware's rare or endangered
         wetlands plant species are now found in wetlands that were
         formerly created or occupied by beaver, and these areas are now
         in later successional stages following beaver abandonment (or
         removal). The long-term perpetuation of certain rare or
         endangered species in Delaware may depend upon wetlands
         successional cycles, and the beaver may be a primary agent for
         triggering or controlling these cycles.

         2)   Other Damages to Property

              Beaver use woody and herbaceous vegetation for food and as
         building materials. These activities can result in the loss of
         commercial timber through cutting or girdling, the destruction of
         ornamental or fruit trees, and even depuration of agricultural
         crops adjacent to beaver wetlands. In addition, beaver may
         damage ditch banks and culverts through burrowing, and in some
         instances farm equipment has fallen into beaver bank-tunnels or
         ditch-bank dens.









                                    22









         VII. Determination if Substantive Beaver-Caused Socioeconomic
              Problems are Occurrin


         1)   Types and locations of potential problems and factors to
              consider and evaluate.


         A.   Private Lands in Urban or Suburban Areas.

              In urban or suburban areas, beaver damage often involves the
         girdling or cutting of ornamental trees and shrubs. Their
         burrowing under roads or walkways may cause collapse. Beaver-
         induced flooding can cause damage to lawns or gardens, basements
         or foundations, and roadside ditches or driveway culverts.
         Beaver activities can interfere with the functioning of septic
         fields or cesspools, and can inhibit stormwater management
         facilities. However, many flooding "problems" in urban or
         suburban areas are often more cosmetic than truly damaging, in
         that many people do not like the conversion of lawns to standing
         11swamp" water. Additionally, flooding damage is often limited
         only to minor structures located in the floodplain, which could
         be moved with relatively little trouble (e.g., woodpiles, dog
         houses or kennels, small sheds, etc.). Nevertheless, the
         willingness of property owners to accept even minor new pools of
         standing water.on their property may not meet with widespread
         acceptance. Possible concerns with potential cutting of
         ornamental trees or other valuable vegetation, in relation to
         either existing beaver colonies or proposed introduced colonies,
         may be addressed by educating landowners about damage prevention
         methods. Such methods may include enclosing the bottom three
         feet of valuable individual trees with heavy wire mesh, hardware
         cloth, or galvanized metal. Commercial deer repellents may deter
         beavers, with diluted repellent (1:50) painted on the first few
         lower feet of a tree trunk. Exclusion fencing of small critical
         areas such as driveway culverts, storm drains, or small ponds may
         prevent damage.

         B.   Tax Ditches


              The agricultural tax ditch system in Delaware is used to
         drain water off agricultural fields within a 24-hour period in
         order to prevent crop damage. Tax ditches also help prevent
         flooding of highways and road structures, and provide drainage
         relief for residential properties. Tax ditches are independent
         units of government established by the courts, and are supervised
         by tax ditch associations and tax ditch managers.

              Beaverdams built in tax ditches can cause surface flooding
         of agricultural cropland or commercial timber adjacent or lateral
         to beaverdam wetlands. Upstream drainage may also be inhibited,
         creating similar problems for agriculture or forestry in the
         upstream watershed. Even if surface flooding does not occur,
         excessive subsurface wetness may be caused by tax ditch blockage,
         lowering crop production lateral to ditches (although higher
         water tables in ditches may enhance crop production during


                                     23








         droughts or late summer). Tax ditch blockage by beavers may also
         impair the operation of water control structures within the
         ditches. Finally, beaver activities may affect ditch-edge access
         of vehicles or heavy machinery necessary for crop production or
         ditch maintenance and repair.

         C.   Public Lands - Conservation or Recreation Areas


              The promotion of beaver-created wetland habitat on public
         conservation or recreation lands is, in a relative sense, easier
         to accomplish than on other types of lands. However, beaver
         activities on public lands may still create problems needing
         remedial action. For example, on Bombay Hook National Wildlife
         Refuge, beavers have occasionally plugged water control
         structures needed to manage water levels for waterbird habitats
         within impoundments, with blockage usually occurring in the
         "drawdown" phase of impoundment management. The impacts of
         flooding on species or habitat management plans, including
         species of special concern and rare or endangered species, should
         be considered; many wetlands species will benefit from enhanced
         hydroperiods, while others may not. Flooding impacts may also
         have unacceptable effects on recreational access or use of the
         land (for both consumptive and non-consumptive recreational
         activities). Beaver activities and their effects on tax ditches
         crossing public lands must also be considered, in terms of needed
         ditch functions on both public and private lands, and in
         consideration of the tax ditches' adverse environmental impacts
         to public lands (for which beavers may serve as remedial agents).

         D.   Highways, Railways, Airports

              The frequency, duration and depth of beaver-induced
         floodings on road surfaces, railways, runways, and other
         transportation corridors must be considered, particularly in
         regard to the extent of threat to public safety. Beaver
         activities can also cause unacceptable impacts to transportation
         structures such as clogging of culverts, burrowing into
         embankments or causeways, or roadbed undermining due to saturated
         conditions and erosion.


         E.   Private Land in Rural Areas (Non-tax ditch)

              Many of the beaver-caused problems potentially occurring on
         private urban or suburban lands (see Section VII-la) may also
         occur on private lands in rural areas. Additionally, flooding
         damage or unacceptable cutting or girdling of vegetation may
         affect agricultural crops or commercial timber.

         2)   Prioritization of Concerns if Two or More Types of Problems
              are Occurring at One Site

              In Section VII-1 above, 5 classes of potential beaver
         problems are described: a) private lands in urban or suburban
         areas; b) tax ditches and the aglands or other lands influenced


                                    24







         by tax ditch drainage; c) public lands-conservation or recreation
         areas; d) highways, railways, airports; e) private lands in rural
         areas (non tax-ditch). It is not unusual for a beaver-caused
         problem to involve aspects of two or more problem classes. For
         example, a beaverdam, may have been constructed on a State
         Wildlife Area (SWA) in a tax ditch which has a  natural tributary
         upstream of the SWA on private lands, and this  natural tributary
         flows under a public road. Beaverdam flooding   on the SWA may be
         creating desirable wildlife habitat on the SWA  and improving
         downstream water quality, but at the same time  the elevated water
         may: 1) occasionally block access to a SWA maintenance road; 2)
         create poor drainage in 3 acres of upstream cropland; 3) cause
         minor road floodings of the public road when rainfall exceeds 2"
         in 24 hours; and 4) occasionally cause inundation of the lower
         end of a dog kennel on private land.

               In order to provide some guidance for how to prioritize
         concerns when evaluating whether or not substantial beaver-caused
         problems exist, which may also help in selection of remedial
         actions, the following recommendation is made for beaver-problems
         involving two or more classes of problems. We recommend that the
         following sequence of concerns be recognized in evaluating
         beaver-induced problems, ranked in priority from higher concern
         (#l) to lower  concern (#4):

                    1)  Highways, railways, airports
                    2)  Tax ditches and the aglands or other lands
                        influenced by tax ditch drainage
                    3)  Private lands, whether they be urban/suburban
                        or non-tax ditch rural
                    4)  Public lands - conservation or recreational

         This prioritization does not suggest the neglect of any problem
         that may be occurring in a lower priority class when two or more
         problem types simultaneously occur, but it does provide some
         guidance to decision-makers whenever prioritization of problems
         may be necessary to make an action decision. Also note that this
         recommended sequence does not set priorities for determining how
         to balance the positive environmental aspects of beavers with
         their potential socioeconomic problems. The recommended
         prioritization merely applies to ranking concerns for when
         beaver-induced impacts are determined, on a site-specific basis,
         to be substantive problems.

         3)    Integration of Factors to Make a Decision if Substantial
               Problems are Occurring and if Remedial Action is Warranted

               Section VII-1 identifies 5 classes of potential
         socioeconomic problems that beavers may cause, and Section VII-2
         recommends a prioritization of the class concerns for when
         substantive problems are recognized or identified.
         Unfortunately, no simple "cookbook" formulae exist to determine
         if and when substantive socioeconomic problems occur to an extent
         where remedial action must be taken. Nor are there simple


                                     25








         procedures to follow to weigh positive environmental benefits of
         beavers against problems that they might be causing. Each
         suspect beaver-problem will have to be evaluated on a site-
         specific, case-by-case basis, since each location's setting and
         circumstances will be unique. The most critical tool in
         determining if a substantive problem really exists will be the
         balanced judgment of a trained ecological professional,
         knowledgeable about both environmental values and socioeconomic
         realities.


              In almost all cases, it would be environmentally desirable
         from the standpoint of quality wildlife habitat or good water
         quality to let beavers remain in an area and go about their
         business of being beavers. However, the potential socioeconomic
         problems discussed in Section VII-1 may frequently override the
         environmental desirability of retaining beavers at certain
         locations. It will be important in the decision process to
         recognize truly substantive problems and to reject cosmetic or
         superficial complaints. Clearly, part of the assessment process
         must involve estimation of economic or acreage losses that
         beavers may be causing residential areas, agriculture or
         silviculture. Estimation of economic costs would also be
         involved for the maintenance, repair or modification of
         transportation structures if problem-beavers are allowed to
         remain. Sometimes the availability of a suitable remedial action
         (see Section VIII) can quickly and easily turn a beaver-problem
         into a non-problem (while still maintaining the beaver's
         environmental benefits), but in other cases the beavers may have
         to be removed because the available remedial actions are too
         costly or impractical. Finally, one must assess the attitudes of
         the local people about the presence of beavers, for both the
         beaver's good and bad attributes, because the sentiments and
         biases of landowners, neighbors, community associations, tax
         ditch managers and others will be crucial to the long-term
         success of whatever recommendations and decisions are made.
         Public education about beavers and their attributes will be
         needed to counter incorrect perspectives or unwarranted biases.
         Since the Division of Fish and Wildlife does not have the
         authority on private lands (nor on many public lands) to mandate
         management either for beaver habitat protection or for taking
         remedial actions, the success of a beaver management program must
         depend upon mutual understanding and cooperation amongst public
         agencies and the private sector.

         VIII. Remedial Response Options  if a Substantive Beaver-caused
                Socioeconomic Problem is Occurring

         1.   Live-trapping and transfer of problem-beavers.

         A.   Identification of Potential Release Sites for Live-Trapped
              and Transferred Beaver


              The identification of potential release sites for live-
         trapped and transferred beavers involves several environmental


                                    26








         considerations. Each potential release area will require
         evaluations of site-specific criteria. A potential release site
         should be reviewed in terms of the support necessary to maintain
         a male-and-female pair of transferred adult beavers, plus up to
         two generations of their offspring (i.e. kits and yearlings)
         simultaneously occupying the site. Additionally, because of    both
         innate social behaviors and habitat needs, one should not be
         surprised if some (or many) relocated beavers extensively wander
         away from their release sites; one should also expect that
         mortality will be high during these extensive movements or
         wanderings.

               Criteria for release site selection should include:


               1.   Acceptance by landowners in the potential floodplain;

               2.   Suitable on-site habitat capable of supporting beavers,
                    with attention to hydrological potential and food
                    supply; release sites with extensive forested areas
                    adjacent to waterways will provide longer-lived colony
                    locations than sites where the forested cover is only
                    a narrow corridor along the watercourse;

               3.   The release site's potential wetlands edge (i.e. the
                    predicted edge of standing water in a beaverdam
                    wetland) should be assessed in terms of proximity to
                    agricultural fields and vertical relief between
                    wetlands bottom and agricultural field edge; based
                    upon the predicted height of water in a beaverdam
                    wetland (e.g. 5-feet above bottom), estimate extent of
                    lateral and upstream flooding in relation to adjacent
                    croplands; eliminate potential release sites having
                    moderate to high probabilities of creating cropland
                    flooding problems;

               4.   Evaluate current land-use patterns and the associated
                    reliance on tax ditch systems to determine if beaver-
                    caused flooding in an area would be compatible with
                    existing land uses, causing only minimal negative impacts;

               5.   Evaluate potential flooding of highways and roads,
                    culverts, residential structures and property, etc.;

               6.   Consider proximity to ornamental vegetation, tree farms,
                    nurseries, etc. that may be damaged by beaver cuttings;
                    for concerns with potential vegetation cutting damage
                    in residential areas, landowners should be educated
                    about possible damage prevention measures (see Section
                    VII-lA).

               7.   Determine if a potential release site (or the
                    potentially flooded area) has been identified as a
                    habitat of special concern, in that it contains rare or
                    endangered plant or animal species or constitutes a


                                     27








                   unique biotic association; beavers moving into such
                   areas may cause hydrological alterations detrimental
                   (in intermediate ecological timeframes) to extant flora
                   or fauna; while such impacts would probably not call
                   for remedial actions for beavers "naturally" colonizing
                   a site (i.e. moving-in unassisted by man), the
                   purposeful release or reestablishment by man of beavers
                   in such valued areas may not be currently desirable,
                   particularly if alternative release sites having
                   equally attractive features for beavers are available;
                   however, it must be kept in mind that when beavers have
                   become fully reestablished in Delaware (i.e. when they
                   occupy all naturally available sites not causing
                   substantive socioeconomic problems), the beavers' final
                   decision to occupy (or reoccupy) a site will depend
                   solely on suitable topography, hydrology and vegetation
                   as perceived by the beavers, not on man-made classifi-
                   cations of extant biota;

              8.   Consider the need for beaver sterilization prior to
                   release to prevent potentially undesirable colonizations
                   to adjacent but unintended areas.

              Generally Desirable Release Sites:

              1.   Compatible public lands (e.g. state wildlife areas,
                   state parks, state forests, national wildlife refuges);

              2.   Private lands having suitable environmental features,
                   where landowners are cooperative and socioeconomic
                   problems will be minimal, both for the actual release
                   site and within the surrounding vicinity in event of
                   beaver moving off-site.

          B. Potential release sites in Delaware


              The Division of Fish and Wildlif e maintains updated maps of
         potential release sites for problem-beavers, and keeps an
         inventory of sites where beavers have been released. The
         Division is made aware of potential sites by private landowners,
         Division field staff, and other sources. As of July 1991, the
         Division of Fish and Wildlife has identified 17 potential release
         areas in Delaware for problem-beavers, with 8 areas on state-
         owned lands and 9 areas on private land. Each potential release
         area could accommodate from 4-12 transferred beavers depending
         upon an area's specific characteristics; statewide, these 17 areas
         could potentially accommodate an estimated total of 110
         transferred beavers.


              The transfer and release of beaver in a relocation area
         should consider the number of potential suitable sites in an area
         which could be occupied by beaver pairs. As much as practical, a
         live trap-and-relocate program should consider territorial needs
         and behavior of beavers, release of male-and-female pairs,


                                    28








         population age structure, and other social factors important to
         colony success. Sexing of beavers can be done in the field (via
         presence or absence of baculum), but to make such observations
         requires an immobilization device. The best candidate animals
         for relocation and successful establishment of new colonies, in
         terms of staying on-site at the release areas, are pregnant
         females, with the best times for transportation from February
         through April. Releasing too many beavers in a relocation area,
         or stocking beaver groups having inappropriate sex ratios or age
         structures, should be avoided as much as possible.

              We believe that the potential release sites identified to
         date may represent a substantial fraction of the ultimate number
         of potential release sites in the state, so it will become
         increasingly harder to find future release sites for transferred
         beaver. Because of the flat topography that exists throughout
         most of Delaware, beaver activities can cause water to back-up
         over extensive areas. While in many ways this helps to promote
         positive environmental aspects of beaver activities, it may also
         increase potential socioeconomic problems, thus lowering the
         number of options for potential release sites. In order to help
         insure the successful establishment of transferred beavers,
         potential release sites will not be publicized. New potential
         release sites or cooperative landowners will be both sought and
         welcomed.


              Using Delaware's two National Wildlife Refuges (Bombay Hook
         and Prime Hook) as potential release sites for problem-beavers
         might be possible in certain instances, but these outlets are not
         as attractive as one might assume. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
         Service has a policy not to introduce animals of any kind on a
         federal refuge without extensive tests of individual animals to
         rule out transmission of disease to extant wildlife populations.
         Such a precautionary policy has both its advantages and
         disadvanatges--in terms of procedures and paperwork needed to
         release transferred beavers on the federal refuges, the
         bureaucratic hurdles may be too great to achieve expeditious,
         economical releases, particularly if alternative release sites
         exist.


              The alternative of shipping Delaware's problem-beavers for
         relocation out-of-state is not viable, since most other states
         also now have substantial populations (and their own problems).
         In a recent telephone survey conducted by the Delaware Division
         of Soil and Water Conservation, all 50 states and several
         Canadian provinces were attempted to be contacted to see if
         they would accept live-trapped Delaware beavers. The phone
         survey was able to contact authoritative personnel in 31 states
         and the province of Quebec. Out of the authoritative contacts
         that were made, only the state of Idaho was willing to accept
         Delaware beavers; Idaho said they could accept 25-50 beavers on a
         one-time basis, if Delaware was willing to provide the
         appropriate transport care and pay for their shipping. We
         probably would not have considered out-of-state transport of


                                     29








         problem-beavers prior to filling all suitable and desirable
         relocation sites in Delaware. However, the phone survey does
         indicate that once Delaware's release site are exhausted, the
         option of out-of-state relocations has very limited potential.

         C.   Methods of Live Trapping

              When beavers are to be removed from an area, the site where
         the colony is living should be examined carefully before setting
         traps. It is important to look for dams, lodges, bank burrows,
         travel canals, and food plots. It is also important to remember
         that each trap must be placed to get the quickest result. There
         are basically two types of traps that can be legally used for
         trapping beaver in Delaware. There are traps that kill the
         animal (e.g. leg-hold traps in a drowning set), and there are
         traps that will restrain a live animal until the trapper returns
         (e.g. Bailey or Hancock live-traps or cable snares).

              Live-traps are used to capture beavers alive so that they
         can be removed from an area. The most common live-trap is the
         Bailey trap. The animal steps onto a trigger pan, and the Bailey
         trap closes around the animal like a suitcase. The other live-
         trap used in Delaware is the Hancock trap. It is similar to the
         Bailey except that only one side of the trap closes while the
         other side remains in place. The Hancock trap was designed for
         use on steep banks and is easier to use than the Bailey type.
         Both of these types of live-traps are fairly expensive, costing a
         few hundred dollars per trap.

              Another method of live trapping beavers is to use a cable
         snare. Cable snares can be effective, practical, time-saving
         devices for beaver capture (T.S. Hardisky, pers. comm.). There
         are several advantages to using cable snares: good trapping
         efficiency; lightweight and inexpensive ($1.00 per snare); cannot
         injure trapper or unsuspecting traveler and will not kill
         captured beavers; risk of non-target capture is low, and non-
         target catches can be released; low susceptibility to theft or
         rust. Disadvantages include: heavy tie-down required; cannot be
         reused after capture; first-time users require instruction in
         their use and types of sets.

         D.   Methods of Transfer

              Once a beaver has been live-trapped, the trap and captured
         animal should be carried to an unobstructed area so that the
         beaver can be more easily transferred from the trap to a
         transport cage. Transport cages were designed and built by
         Division of Fish and Wildlife staff to aid in transporting
         trapped beavers to release sites. The transport cage was
         designed so that when transferring a beaver from a trap to a
         cage, the beaver does not need to be handled, and the transfer
         can be accomplished by one person if required. This also helps
         the trapper, so that he may re-set his traps immediately if
         needed, and not have to use the traps themselves as the transport


                                    30








         containers. It must be kept in mind that live-trap and transfer
         operations involve some stress on the animals, and that nervous
         reactions may result in gnawing on transport cages, sometimes
         resulting in chipped or broken teeth. Occasional mortality
         should also be expected.

              Once a beaver is in the transport cage, it is taken by
         vehicle to the release site. Data are collected and recorded at
         the release site on a beaver-release data sheet (Appendix 6).
         Tagging the beaver with a metal ear tag is the last step prior to
         release, The beaver is taken out of the cage with a noose-pole,
         and a numbered tag is fastened to the ear (National Band & Tag
         Co., Jiffy Style 893, size 3). Beavers may also be marked with
         tail tags (cattle ear tags can be used). Tail tags are not as
         susceptible to loss as are ear tags, since the tail consists of
         thick cartilage (not highly vascularized) under scaly skin.

         E,   Potential Need and Procedures for Reproductive Control of
              Transferred Beavers


              At some potential release sites, the fear of beavers
         reproducing and having their progeny move off-site to cause
         unforeseen problems may be great enough that sterilization of
         live-trapped and transferred animals might be considered prior to
         their release. The most acceptable methods for induced sterility
         include male vasectomy and female oviducal ligation. Testicular
         or ovicular castration is not recommended because of associated
         behavioral problems. However, because of the expense involved in
         doing any surgical procedures, with the need for veterinary
         operative and post-operative care, it is doubtful that
         surgically-induced sterility will have much practical use.
         Additionally, effective chemosterilants are not available for
         beavers. It is more probable that if progeny expansion is a
         major concern at a release site, and if the problems that might
         be associated with progeny movement could not be handled by other
         methods, then the release site would probably be delisted as a
         release location. If release sites are used where the potential
         for future beaver problems is more than minimal, then the need
         for extra post-release monitoring and increased responsiveness to
         complaints should be recognized.

         F.   Long-Term Monitoring of Transferred Beavers

              Problem-beavers transferred and released at designated
         release sites are tagged to allow their future study. Periodic
         inspections should be done, probably by wildlife biologists, at
         and near the release sites to see if the beavers are successfully
         colonizing the site, to determine what types of activities the
         beavers are doing, and to see if beavers are causing any
         unforeseen problems on-site or off-site.

         2. Dispatch of Problem-Beavers

              When potential release sites for problem-beavers have been


                                    31








         exhausted, or when manpower, monetary or logistical
         considerations do not permit a live-trap and transfer operation,
         it may be necessary to dispatch problem-beavers. It is probable
         that the killing of problem-beavers will become a more common
         solution to beaver problems in Delaware as the options for
         release sites become scarcer; if no release sites are available
         for problem-beavers, then dispatch becomes the only solution when
         structural remedies (see Section VIII-3) are impossible or
         impractical.

              Dispatch of beaver can be effectively achieved using a leg-
         hold trap in a drowning set, where a slide device or angle of the
         trap-set prevents reemergence of the captured animal. The
         potential for capturing non-target species in leg-hold traps is
         low, as long as care is given to making the proper aquatic sets.
         Cable snares can also be used for trapping beaver, and any non-
         target species which may be caught can usually be released
         unharmed from a cable snare set. Beavers live-trapped in a cable
         snare could then be dispatched by legally-approved methods. Leg
         snares could also be used, but these spring-activated snares are
         difficult and time-consuming to use for aquatic drowning sets.
         Beavers can also be trapped in a live-trap such as the Bailey or
         Hancock, and then dispatched upon retrieval. Killer or conibear
         traps of sufficiently large size for beaver capture (e.g. #220 or
         #330) are illegal to use in Delaware. Any permitted trapping of
         problem-beaver should be done in a humane fashion as discretely
         as possible.

              Potential personnel who might participate in beaver trapping
         and dispatch include Division wildlife biologists or enforcement
         officers, private contract trappers authorized by the Division,
         private landowners, or private trappers seasonally participating
         in a regulated trapping program open to the public.

         3.   Regulated Trapping Program Open to the Public

              Beaver-nuisance problems may become too widespread or
         intensive in Delaware to be satisfactorily handled by the
         Division of Fish and Wildlife, whether done by Division-
         contracted trappers or by staff enforcement officers or wildlife
         biologists. Funding availability may limit the effectiveness of
         using contracted agents to control beavers, even if the costs of
         trapping and dispatch are cost-shared under certain conditions.
         For example, trapping and dispatching 100 problem-beavers per
         year at a contract cost of $50 per beaver would cost $5000 per
         annum. Also, time and availability of even contracted agents may
         not be adequate to contend with nuisance problems if they become
         too numerous.


              In order to contend with beaver problems that may become too
         numerous or widespread to be satisfactorily handled on a case-by-
         case basis, the Division does have, as a readily available
         option, the remedy of a regulated trapping program open to the
         general public, which could be used to manage overly abundant


                                    32








         beaver populations. The creation of a beaver trapping program
         open to the public, if needed or desirable, would be done via the
         Division's regulatory authority and procedures.

              Any statewide open trapping season for beavers would be
         developed having an annual total statewide harvest goal in mind
         (e.g. 150 beaver per year), with the goal achieved via control of
         season lengths, harvest limits per trapper, numbers of
         participating trappers, gear restrictions, etc. (or various
         combinations of these limitations). The types of traps and
         trapping methods to be used in a regulated trapping season open
         to the public would be the same as discussed in Section VIII-2.
         As with any type of open season trapping, traps could not be set
         for beavers without prior permission of the landowner. Beaver
         harvest could be monitored via a tagging or registration system.

              The use of a regulated trapping program open to the public
         is probably one of the most cost-effective methods for
         controlling undesirably high beaver numbers (in terms of
         statewide population densities). Additionally, such a program
         offers the public new sources of food and fur, plus new
         recreational opportunities. However, public trapping does not
         have the level of precision that other approaches offer for
         contending with specific beaver-caused problems, nor for
         safeguarding the continuance of beaver activities at desirable
         sites. There is potential that problem-beavers might be
         underharvested and thus not cure certain site-specific problems,
         while beavers at non-problem locations, where they're environ-
         mentally beneficial, might be overharvested. Thus, total
         statewide harvest goals might be achieved, but specific nuisance
         .problems might not be eliminated, while environmentally-desirable
         activities might be unwantedly terminated.

              Nevertheless, an open trapping season would allow private
         landowners to take care of their own beaver problems without
         having to get a special permit from the Division (which would be
         needed during the closed seasons). Additionally, in areas where
         beavers are not causing socioeconomic problems, but are subject
         to density reductions via an open trapping season, new vacancies
         would be created for release (during closed seasons) of problem-
         beavers that could be live-trapped and transferred. Since the
         economic demand for beaver fur or meat is now very low, it would
         not be too surprising if much of the harvest during an open
         season focused on problem-beavers.

              in the event of undesirable underharvesting or over-
         harvesting of beavers in more localized areas, refinements to a
         statewide open season could be made by dividing the State into
         several geographical zones, each zone potentially having
         different open season lengths, total harvest goals, individual
         limits per zone, etc. Depending upon the demand for
         participating in a beaver trapping program, exclusive trapping
         rights might have to be delineated for areas within the zones and
         awarded to individuals on a lottery basis, or the total number of


                                    33








          participants within a zone might have to be restricted, perhaps
          again using lottery selection. Such fine-tuning of wildlife
          harvests are familiar undertakings for the Division.

              An additional refinement to a public open trapping season
          might be the creation of a "hot spot" program for landowners
          having extensive beaver damage problems on their property. Such
          landowners would enroll in the program and allow public beaver
          trapping on their land only; the names and addresses of all
          cooperating landowners would be available to interested trappers.
          The number of trappers permitted on lands in a "hot spot" program
          would be determined by the landowner in consultation with
          Division of Fish and Wildlife biologists, and all trapping
          procedures would still have to adhere to the public season dates,
          bag limits, prescribed methods, etc.

              In event of a beaver population expanding beyond the State's
          resource availability to control it, perhaps a combination of a
          Division-regulated trapping program open to the public to contend
          with statewide or regional density problems, plus a Division-
          authorized contract trapper program to contend with site-specific
          problems, would yield the most responsive, cost-effective
          approach.

              An overview of how nearby states (Maryland, New Jersey,
          Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina
          and Massachusetts) handle open trapping seasons for beaver and
          respond to nuisance problems is given in Appendix B.


          4.  Structural Remedies to Resolve Flooding Problems Caused by
              Beavers


              Many types of structural remedies have been tried to resolve
          socioeconomic problems that may be associated with excessive
          flooding or high water levels in beaverdam wetlands. In
          situations where beavers must be removed (by trap-and-transfer or
          dispatch) and then the flooding problem eliminated, the complete
          remedy must also involve the structural removal or breaking-up of
          the beaverdam, accomplished by hand, heavy machinery or
          explosives. While it is prohibited in Delaware to damage the
          nest, den or lair of a game animal, the.alteration of a beaverdam
          (whether an active colony is present or not) is not prohibited.
          In many cases, however, it is possible to control water levels
          with water control structures where beaver ponds are desired,
          allowing the beaver to remain. These water control structures
          are designed to lower and maintain desired water levels in
          existing beaverdam wetlands. An example of a beaverdam water
          control pipe is given in Figure 5, and was installed in a
          beaverdam located on a State Wildlife Area during the spring of
          1991. It is important that the water intake end of a beaver pipe
          be submerged deeply enough that all running water noise, and even
          surface whirlpools or swirls, be eliminated, since beavers will
          go to great lengths to attempt to block any running water that


                                     34



   MW&WIMMON MM memo=


                                                             3W-


                                                                         Of,




                             -UU



                                                                                                                             10




                                          id-


                                                  0
                                                                                                    DAM
                                                               %*&r flew



                                                Figure 5   Examples of beaver-flow.through pipes using
                                                           corrugated flexible sewer pipe and PVC pipe








         they can detect. Initial observations indicated the
         structure was functioning as desired, but before substantial
         monitoring could be done, the system was vandalized.

               Most beaverdam water control structures consist of flow-
         through pipes of various diameters and configurations that are
         designed and installed to stop dammed water from rising above a
         desired level during times of normal runoff. Thus, no matter how
         high beavers may attempt to build a dam, the water level during
         normal runoff periods will not be able to be maintained by
         beavers above a human-determined level. Beaverdam water control
         structures are not designed to control water levels during spates
         (short-lived, si;-oradic, rainfall-induced flooding events). Water
         level control during spates is determined by the height of
         spillways that beavers may have built into a dam, or by the
         actual top of the dam itself, with the entire surface of the dam
         top serving as a spillway. Each beaver site will vary, so the
         design and installation of beaverdam water control structures
         must be site-specific.

               There are several considerations that need to be examined
         before choosing and installing beaverdam water control
         structures. First, the socioeconomic acceptance of installing
         the structure must be a paramount consideration. The diameter
         and number of flow-through pipes to effectively handle the water
         volumes in inundated areas during routine or base flows (in order
         to maintain desired levels) must be calculated prior to
         installation. The design of the structures should be as
          beaverproof" as possible, in that it should be very difficult
         for beavers to block the water intake or outflow devices of the
         structures. The structures should also blend visually with their
         surroundings, and not be excessively visible to invite vandalism.
         The installation costs for long-term maintenance and
         repair must also be considered, as well as designation of the
         agencies or personnel responsible for these activities.

         5.    Choosing a Remedial Response for a Substantive Beaver-
               Caused Problem

               As with determining if a substantive beaver-caused problem
         exists in the first place (see Section VII-3), there are no
         simple "cookbook" formulae for determining the type of remedy to
         use to address substantive problems. While a purpose of a
         possible regulated trapping season open to the public is to help
         reduce beaver regional population densities to levels in which
         nuisance problems become more managable, substantive nuisance
         problems will still occur that must be addressed on a case-by-
         case basis. The selection of a remedy for substantive problems
         must be evaluated on a site-specific basis. The live-trap and
         transfer option may be the most preferred, but is heavily
         dependent upon staff availability and coordination on short
         notice, plus the availability of suitable release sites.
         Structural remedies whose implementation would allow beavers to
         remain on-site and not cause socioeconomic problems are sometimes


                                     36








          too costly to be practical, or from an engineering standpoint may
          be impossible, or from the standpoint of commitment to long-term
          maintenance and repair may be impractical. Dispatch of problem-
          beavers is the quickest and least expensive remedy, but this
          option eliminates the positive environmental benefits of active
          beaverdam wetlands, and in some cases may cause adverse human
          reactions or social problems.

          6.  Criteria for Evaluating the Environmental Quality or
              Importance of Existing Beaverdam Wetlands.

              The expense and effort associated with various remedial
          options varies widely, ranging from relatively inexpensive on-
          site dispatch done by landowners or contract trappers, to more
          expensive 1,ive-trap and transfer operations, to more costly
          installation and maintenance of structural remedies. The factor
          of cost effectiveness should also be built into an evaluative
          process for determining how to deal with substantive beaver-
          caused problems, since resource management funds are limited and
          must be wisely spent. It makes practical sense that in deciding
          how to spend limited funds for wisely managing beaver
          populations, we should not invest heavily in remedial actions
          (for substantive problems) in existing beaverdam wetlands where
          the environmental values or benefits of a given wetland are
          relatively lower than in another beaverdam wetland having greater
          environmental values and benefits. Conversely, when given
          limited funds for beaver management, we might spend our resources
          for the more costly structural remedies (to maintain existing
          beaverdam wetlands) for only those wetlands having higher
          environmental values and benefits.

              In order to help evaluate the level of environmental values
          and benefits of existing beaverdam wetlands, the following
          factors should be considered for existing beaverdam wetlands:

          A. What is the expected longevity of the beaverdam wetland (e.g.
          number of years) before one would predict that the colony will
          have to abandon the site? At current water levels, how much
          longer might it be expected that herbaceous or woody vegetation
          will remain adequate to meet the colony's needs? Can water
          levels be raised in the future by the beavers (in order to
          provide access to new food sources) without causing substantive
          socioeconomic problems? If water levels can be raised, how many
          more years of colony occupancy might be predicted?

          B. What are the known or suspected site-specific values of the
          existing beaverdam wetland for wildlife habitat? Is there
          knowledge or evidence that the site is valuable for waterfowl
          production, feeding or resting, or that it's valuable habitat for
          other waterbirds or passerine species? Does it have abundant or
          diverse populations of fishes, amphibians or reptiles? Are
          muskrat lodges evident, or is there evidence of raccoon or otter
          use? Are endangered, threatened or rare species present?



                                     37









         C. Does the existing beaverdam wetland appear to be located at a
         site where it would be providing substantial water quality
         benefits, in terms of sediment retention or dissolved nutrient
         filtration? For example, beaverdam wetlands immediately upstream
         from the headwaters of millponds, or those that receive upland
         runoff fron extensive cropland acreage, or those that receive
         urban runoff from watersheds lacking good stormwater management
         controls, all have the potential to be important landscape
         features for maintaining or improving water quality.

         D. The size (acreage) of a beaverdam wetland should be
         considered. In general, the larger the area affected by
         beaverdam inundation, the more valuable the site, since greater
         amounts of environmental benefits would be associated with larger
         sites (in comparison to smaller sites).

         E. Will future water supply to the existing beaverdam wetland be
         adequate to meet the colony's needs? If not, then beaver will
         abandon the site. If it's known that man's future plans for
         water supplies at a site will unavoidably cause excessive water
         extraction or diversion at expense of the colony's water needs,
         then the site's potential longevity will be compromised.

         IX*  Identification of Types of Action Costs Associated with
              Implementin a Beaver Management Plan.

              1)  Cost of determining or resolving if a substantive beaver-
                  caused problem is occurring and warrants remedy.

              2)  Cost of determining the type of remedy to use to resolve
                  a substantive beaver-caused problem.

              3)  Implementing the remedies
                  a) Live trap/transfer

                           Trapping costs
                           Transportation costs
                           Pre-release and release procedural costs
                           Long-term monitoring costs

                   b) Dispatch

                        . Trapping costs
                        . Disposal costs

                   c) Structural Measures

                           Costs of determining the type of structure
                           to use
                           Engineering design costs
                           Structural material costs
                           Installation costs
                           Regulatory permit costs (if needed)
                           Long-term maintenance and repair costs


                                    38








         X.   Preferred Participation and Responsibilities of Agencies and
              Personnel in a Beaver Management Plan

              The Division of Fish and Wildlife is recommending the
         following participatory roles of agencies and personnel in
         implementing the Beaver management Plan. We have recommended the
         participation of agencies or personnel in context of 5 classes of
         beaver-caused  problems and 7 types of management decisions or
         actions:


              Types of  Beaver-caused Problems:

                    1)  Private urban/suburban residential
                    2)  Tax ditches and the aglands or other lands
                        influenced by tax ditch drainage
                    3)  Public lands-conservation or recreation
                    4)  Highways, railways, airports
                    5)  Rural private lands (non-tax ditch)

              Types of  Management Decisions or Actions:

                    1)  Who has final authority to determine if there is a
                        substantive beaver-caused problem?
                    2)  Who finally determines the desirable action to be
                        taken if a substantive problem exists?
                    3)  Who implements action if the remedy is to live-trap
                        and transfer?
                    4)  Who monitors long-term for transplanted beaver?
                    5)  Who implements action if the remedy is dispatch?
                    6)  Who implements action if the remedy is a structural
                        solution?
                    7)  Who manages long-term for maintenance and repair of
                        structural remedies?


              In order  to help delineate who takes what action based on
         the types of problem that may be occurring, we have identified 13
         categories of  potential plan participants:

                    1)  Division of Fish and Wildlife (DNREC)  biologist
                    2)  Division of Fish and Wildlife (DNREC)  enforcement
                        officer
                    3)  Division of Fish and Wildlife (DNREC)  biologist,
                        whose activities are cost-shared with  the landowner
                    4)  Division of Fish and Wildlife (DNREC)  enforcement
                        officer, whose activities are cost-shared with the
                        landowner
                    5)  Landowner or designated lessee
                    6)  Tax ditch manager
                    7)  Other State of Delaware employees (e.g., Division
                        of Soil and Water Conservation field technicians;
                        Division of Water Resources wetlands staff;
                        Division of Parks and Recreation naturalists;
                        State Foresters; Division of Highways engineers;
                        etc.)


                                     39








                    8) U.S. Soil Conservation Service engineer, biologist
                       or field technician
                    9) Conservation District engineer or field technician
                       (New Castle Conservation District; Kent Conserva-
                       tion District; or Sussex Conservation District)
                  10)  Contract trapper authorized under permit from the
                       Division of Fish and Wildlife
                  11)  Contract trapper authorized under permit from the
                       Division of Fish and Wildlife, whose activities are
                       cost-shared with the landowner
                  12)  Private engineer or contractor working at the
                       landowner's expense
                  13)  No action - no personnel

              The recommended participation of these agencies or
         personnel, in context of the type and location of beaver-caused
         problems, is given in matrix format in Table 1. For most of the
         individual management decisions and actions in Table 1, more than
         a single party is indicated, reflecting the complexity and
         diversity of affected parties in making and taking management
         actions. Table 1 also provides a recommended hierarchy for
         decision-making and action-taking, indicating which agency or
         personnel has the final responsibility when two (or more) parties
         want to make the same final decisions or perform the same
         management actions. However, no matter who is recommended to
         take final responsibility for a management decision or action,
         the advisory input of all interested parties must be seriously
         considered.

              On Bombay Hook or Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuges,
         which are owned and managed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
         Service, the management of beavers and their habitats will be the
         responsibility of federal refuge personnel. Management
         activities should conform to the Service's refuge management
         plans; beaver trapping or other forms of harvest or capture will
         be subject to all pertinent State laws and regulations. When
         beavers living on the federal refuges cause substantive
         socioeconomic problems off the refuges, the evaluation and
         resolution of problems will be a cooperative undertaking
         involving both federal refuge personnel and State wildlife
         biologists.

              Cost-share programs between service agencies and the parties
         affected by substantive beaver-caused problems are recommended to
         be developed for the following activities:

              a.  Determination if a substantive problem really exists and
                  for selecting a remedial course of action.

              b.  For live-trap/transfer or dispatch remedies.

              C.  For design, materials and installation of structural
                  remedies.




                                    40








                                                       BEAVER MANAGEMENT PLAN PARTICIPATION


                                     Table 1. Determination of Responsible Parties for Management Decisions and Actions



                 TYPE OF       IlWh-            IWho           lWho implementsl  Who monitors lWho implements1who implementsl      Who manages    I
                               Ildetermines     Idetermines    laction if it'sl  long-term forlaction if it'slaction if it'sl      long-term forl
                 BEAVER        Ilif there is    Ithe needed    Ilive-trap and   Itransplanted    Idispatch?      Istructural?     Istructural     I
                               Ila problem?     Iaction        Itransfer?       Ibeaver?         I               I                Imaintenance    I
                 PROBLEM       11               1to take?                                                                          and repair?    I
                 -11-1-1                                                                                                                          1


                 Private

                 Urban
                 Suburban      11   1/5/9/7     1  1/9/7/5     13-1/10/4/3/2/1  1     1/13        11/10/4/3/5    1  9/12/8/3/5    1  9/3/12/5     1
                 Residential




                 Tax Ditch


                 Associated       1/6/5/9/7/8   11/6/5/9/7     111/10/4/3/2/1   1     1/13       111/10/4/3/6/5      7/9/8/6/5       9/6/7/8/5
                  Aglands



                 Conservationli                 I              I                I                I
                     or        11               1              1                1                1
                 Recreationalll     1/5/7/9     1  1/7/5/9     1   10/2/1             1/13           10/2/1         1/7/9/8/12        1/7/9/12
                 Public Landsil


                  IV.


                 Highways
                 Railroads          7/l/9/8     1   1/7/9      111/10/4/3/2/1   1     1/13       111/10/4/3/2/1  1  7/9/8/12/5    1  7/9/12/5     1
                 Airports


                    V.

                 Rural
                 Private Landli
                 (Non-Tax         1/5/9/7/8     1  1/9/7/5     111/10/4/3/2/1   1     1/13        11/10/4/3/5    1  9/12/8/3/5    1  9/3/12/5
                  Ditch)






                                        KEY                                                      RESPONSIBILITY HIERARCHY


                  1.  F & W Biologist                                                                  A/B/C/etc.
                  2.  P & W Enforcement Officer
                  3.  F & W Biologist/Cost Share with Landowner                                      A - FINAL AUTHORITY
                  4.  F & W Enforcement Officer/Cost Share with Landowner                            B - 1st ADVISORY INPUT
                  5.  Landowner/Lessee                                                               C - 2nd ADVSORY INPUr
                  6.  Tax Ditch Manager                                                                  etc.
                  7.  Other State Employee (e.g. Hwy; Forestry; Soil & Water;
                      Parks & Rec; Wetlands)
                  8.  U.S. Soil Conservation Service                                               PROBLEM PRIORITIZATION
                  9.  Conservation Districts
                 10.  Authorized Contract Trapper at DFW Expense                                  (For when 2 or more types
                 11.  Authorized Contract Trapper/Cost Share with Landowner or Agency              of beaver problem are
                 12. Private Contractor/Engineer at Landowner's Expense                            occuring at one site)
                 13. No Action

                                                                                                     IV > II > I - V > III
                                                                 41








              d. For long-term maintenance and repair of structural remedies.

              For some activities, the development of a cost-share
         approach may require legislative action, while for other
         activities cost-shared approaches may be implemented by
         regulatory or other programmatic means. Some services that are
         now performed gratis by public agencies to assist private
         landowners, and which are not legislatively mandated to be
         performed, may be suitable candidates for future cost-share
         agreements. The experience and expertise of Delaware's three
         Conservation Districts in establishing cost-share programs would
         be invaluable to address beaver-caused problems.


         XI. Listing of management Options to Manage Beaver-Abandoned
              Beaverdam Wetlands.


              1.  No action alternative--let unmanaged succession occur.

              2.  Destroy beaverdams to accelerate return to low water
                  levels and channelized flow.

              3.  Maintain higher, desired water levels by replacing
                  beaverdams with low-level earthen levees, and manage
                  water heights with water control structures.



         XII. Public Education and Beavers


              A major effort in implementing a Beaver Management Plan is
         to educate the public about the beneficial environmental
         attributes of beavers and their activities. With the current
         emphasis on protecting and conserving freshwater wetlands at the
         national, state and local levels, it is important to promote
         public understanding about the high environmental values and
         important functions of beaverdam wetlands. An ultimate goal is
         to make the public more tolerant of the presence of beavers. A
         reduced or condensed version of this plan should be prepared,
         targeted for distribution (on an as-needed basis) to landowners,
         the general public, and to non-technical agency personnel,
         decision-and-policy makers, and elected government officials.
         Outreach efforts such as newspaper and magazine articles, and
         presentations to organized groups, are needed to convey the
         message. Through education, the public can become proponents of
         beavers and the habitat that they provide, helping to promote and
         protect the overall wetlands resource.


         XIII. Proposed Immediate Action-Steps to Implement the Plan

              The following 7 actions are proposed to be initiated as soon
         as possible in order to start to implement the Plan. Of course,
         these proposed actions are subject to potential unforeseen
         limitations of staff, time, funds, etc. The following are not


                                    42








         listed in any order of priorities; we should try to simultaneously
         move forward with all 7 actions.

         1) In order to lessen beaver nuisance complaints, particularly
         in areas or regions where beaver densities have become
         intolerably excessive, the Division of Fish and Wildlife will
         institute a regulated, controlled beaver trapping season open to
         the public. In order to avoid overharvesting beavers, the
         initial harvest goals will be conservatively set, with
         participation limited only to licensed trappers using prescribed
         methods during established seasons in specific zones. The
         harvest will be carefully monitored as it occurs, with a
         requirement that all pelts be tagged within a limited time period
         after capture.

              Because of the currently low monetary value of beaver pelts
         (about $6 per Delaware pelt), and the hard work that beaver
         trapping involves, it remains to be seen if the level of trapper
         participation in Delaware (during a zoned open season) will be
         sufficient to satisfactorily reduce excessive beaver densities
         and their nuisance problems. The first few years of having an
         open season would be an evaluative period to see if the nuisance
         problems can be reduced to a more tolerable level.

         2) Establish/identify a dependable source of Division of Fish
         and Wildlife funding (e.g. $5,000 per year) to pay for contract
         trapping of problem-beavers. Such efforts will be needed to
         contend with beaver nuisance problems (via dispatch or live-trap
         and transfer) which may newly arise during the closed season; or
         which were not (or would not be) satisfactorily eliminated during
         a zoned open season; or for which no landowner wants or is able
         to undertake proper corrective action; or in cases where no
         "responsible" landowner can be identified.

         3) In order to best implement the technical aspects of the
         Plan's recommendations for dealing with regional problem
         densities or site-specific problem colonies, and for promoting
         the environmental benefits of beaver activities, designate which
         Division of Fish and Wildlife biologist(s) will have the
         responsibilities for the following actions, and provide (or seek)
         adequate funds or other support necessary for satisfactory
         performance:

             a)  Design, implement, monitor and analyze controlled
                 harvests by the public during zoned open seasons.
                 Enforcement needs during open seasons will be handled by
                 Division E01s.


             b)  Make technical determinations, on public or private lands
                 on a statewide basis, and in consultation with
                 appropriate parties, whether or not a beaver complaint is
                 a substantive problem needing remedial action. Because
                 of the environmental benefits provided by beavers, site-
                 specific technical evaluation is warranted before


                                    43








                 deciding that a beaver complaint received from a
                 landowner (or other party) is substantive and needs
                 remedy.

             c)  Make technical determinations and recommendations, on
                 public or private lands on a statewide basis, and in
                 consultation with appropriate parties, about the best
                 type of remedial action to be taken when action is
                 needed. Because of the environmental benefits provided
                 by beavers, case-specific technical evaluation is
                 warranted when selecting a remedial option, to see if it
                 is desirable and practical to take structural corrective
                 actions which will still allow the beavers to remain, or
                 to see if the situation presents an opportunity to help
                 establish or expand beaver populations at desired and
                 suitable locations elsewhere (i.e. live-trap and
                 transfer); if neither approach is desirable, practical or
                 available for a substantive problem, then dispatch
                 remedies must be recommended.

             d)  In order to further promote the distribution or recovery
                 of beavers in Delaware in areas or regions of the State
                 where desired sustainable populations have not yet been
                 achieved, and where the environmental benefits of beavers
                 have not yet been optimally realized, continue a program
                 which solicits, evaluates and inventories potential
                 release sites for the potential relocation of problem-
                 beavers caught elsewhere.

             e)  Coordinate (or in some special cases supervise or
                 perform) tagging of transferred beavers and gathering of
                 other technical data at the release sites.

             f)  Perform casual monitoring at the release sites of the
                 population and activities of trap-and-transferred
                 beavers; if new research funds could be found, it may be
                 desirable to undertake a more intensive study of beaver
                 responses and activities at a few selected release sites.

             g)  Help to coordinate (or in some special cases help to
                 supervise or perform) the planning, design or
                 installation of structural remedies.

             h)  Contribute to and help to maintain, at a centralized
                 Division location, any maps, inventories and detailed
                 records about existing beaverdam sites and their
                 populations, trap-and-transferred beavers and their
                 release sites, candidate release sites, etc.

         4) Using the environmental criteria developed in the Plan,
         attempt to determine and classify the environmental "quality" or
         "importance" of each existing beaverdam wetland in the State.
         This could be of value in determining, on a case-by-case basis,
         how much effort or resources should be put into structural or


                                    44








         monetary compensation remedies for contending with a substantive
         socioeconomic problem caused by a beaverdam wetland. If a
         specific beaverdam wetland causing a substantive problem is
         determined to be of relatively lower value, then less expensive
         dispatch or trap-and-transfer remedies might be used, whereas a
         relatively higher value beaverdam wetland causing a substantive
         problem might warrant the greater expense of structural remedies.

             A precautionary note about the advanced application of this
          quality" or "importance" criteria is that we're dealing with at
         least 126 potential evaluation sites statewide, which would
         require field (ground) and often aerial assessments, a
         logistically cost and labor intensive undertaking. The proposed
         evaluation as an advance undertaking might not be worth the
         effort, since we do not anticipate that.all 126 existing sites
         will eventually lead to socioeconomic problems (most probably
         won't). It might be wisest and most cost effective to apply the
         "quality" or "importance" criteria only on an "as needed" basis,
         in response to having to evaluate (in terms of cost
         effectiveness) what to do about individual sites when (and if)
         they become problematic.

         5) Perform longer-term evaluations (e.g. over several months) of
         the effectiveness and durability of various water control devices
         (i.e. "beaver baffles" or "beaver pipes") for preventing
         excessive water heights in beaverdam wetlands during longer-term
         period of baseflow. We may also want to design and evaluate
         various water control structures intended to reduce maximum water
         heights in beaverdam wetlands during shorter-term storm flows or
         spates. For devices or structures that are proven to be
         .satisfactory, or which have a high probability of success, we
         should install a few as demonstration projects on the properties
         of cooperative private landowners.

         6) Working with the Division of Soil and Water Conservation and
         the Conservation Districts, establish cost-share programs for
         those Plan activities which the Department and Districts both
         agree are desirable and suitable for the cost-share approach.

         7) Prepare and make available for public distribution a 4-6 page
         information pamphlet about beavers and their activities. This is
         primarily intended to be a hand-out for landowners or people
         having beaver problems, focusing on beaver biology and ecology,
         their environmental benefits, their socioeconomic problems,
         remedies that are possible to alleviate problems, how and from
         whom to get further information or help, etc.










                                    45










          XIV.                  Pertinent References


         Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Beaver.
              FWS/OBS-82/10.30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pp.

         Bailey, V. 1927. Beaver Habits and Experiments in Beaver
              Culture. Technical Bulletin No. 21., Bureau of
              Biological Survey, Washington, D.C.

         Bonwill, H. A. and Owners, B. H. 1939. The Return of a Native.
              The Natural History Society of Maryland, Volume X, No. 4.

         Bradt, G. 1938. A study of beaver colonies in Michigan. J.
              Mammal. 19:139-162.


         Brenner, J. F. 1962. Foods consumed by beavers in Crawford
              County, Pennsylvania. J. Wildl. Manage. 26(l):104-107

         Choate, J. S. 1973. Wildlife resources of the St. John River
              basin, New Brunswick. St. John River Basin Board, Dept.
              Natural Resources, Fredericton, N.B.

         Denney, N. R. 1952. A summary of North American Beaver
              Management (1946-1948). Colorado Game and Fish Department,
              Report 28.

         Hilfiker, E.L. 1991. Beavers: Water, Wildlife and Histor
              Windswept Press, IiTtEerlaken, NY. 198 pp.

         Hill, E. P. 19e2. Beaver. In J. A. Chapman and G. A.
              Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America:
              Biology, Management, Economics. John Hopkins Univ. Press,
              Baltimore, Md. pp. 256-281.

         Jenkins, S. H. 1981. Problems, progress and prospects in
              studies of food selection of beavers. In J. A. Chapman and
              D. Purshey, eds. Worldwide Furbearer Conf. Proc., Vol I,
              pp. 559-579.

         Larmire, A. J. Jr.. 1963. Control device for problem beavers.
              J. Wildl. Manage. 27(3):471-476.

         McDowell, D. M. and R. J. Naiman. 1986. Structure and function
              of a benthic invertebrate stream community as influenced by
              beaver (Castor canadensis). Oecologia 68:481-489.

         Naiman, R. J. and J. M. Melillo. 1984. Nitrogen budget of a
              subarctic stream altered by beaver (Castor canadensis).
              Oecologia 62:150-155.

         Naiman, R. J., J. M. Melillo, and J. E. Hobbie. 1986.
              Ecosystem alteration of boreal forest streams by beaver
              (Castor canadensis). Ecol      67:1254-1269.



                                    46









         Naiman, R. J., J. M. Melillo, M. A. Lock, T. E. Ford, and S. R.
              Reice. In press. Longitudinal patterns of ecosystems
              processes and community structure in a subarctic river
              continuum. Ecology

         Naiman, R. J., C. A. Johnson, and J. C. Kelley. 1988.
              Alteration of North American streams by beaver. BioScience
              38(11):753-767.

         Renouf, R. N. 1970. Waterfowl production on beaver ponds in New
              Brunswick. M. S. theses, Univ. of New Brunswick,
              Fredericton, N. B. 66 pp.

         Ryden, H. 1989. Lily Pond: Four Years with a Family of Beavers.
              William Morrow Co., NY. 156 pp.

         Whitman, W. R. 1987. Estimating black duck production on beaver
              ponds in the Maritimes, 1976-77. In A. J. Erskine (ed.),
              Waterfowl Breeding Population Surveys, Atlantic Provinces.
              Canadian Wildlife Service, Occasional Paper No. 6.

         Williams, R. M. 1965. Beaver habitat and management. Idaho
             Wild. Res. 17(4):3-7.




































                                    47









         XV.      Appendices (Contents)

              1.  Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Management
                  Philosophy (Appendix 1)

              2.  Title 7, Chapter 7, Section 701--Regulations and
                  Prohibitions Concerning Game and Fish (Appendix 2)

              3.  Descriptions of selected beaverdam-wetlands habitats in
                  Delaware.

                  a. Garrisons Lake (Appendix 3)

                  b. Paradise Alley (Appendix 4)

                  c. Masseys Pond (Appendix 5)

              4.  Beaver-Release Data Sheet (Appendix 6)

              5.  List of Agencies/organizations who have reviewed the
                  Delaware Beaver Management Plan (Appendix 7)

              6.  An Overview of Beaver Trapping Seasons and Control
                  Programs in Nearby States (Appendix 8)

              7.  Written Comments About the Plan Received from Other
                  State Agencies, Federal Agencies, Private Environmental
                  Groups, or the Public; Public Meeting (Appendix 9)

              8.  Active Participants in the Development of Delaware's
                  Beaver Management Plan - plan research and preparation,
                  technical advice and consultation, or plan review and
                  comments (Appendix 10).























                                    48









                                    Appendix 1


                      Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
                               Management Philosophy


              The Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife was formed to
         protect and conserve Delaware's wildlife resources (Section 8005
         of Title 29). To fulfill this objective, management principles
         were formed to serve as a conceptual basis for Statewide and
         Regional Wildlife Management Plans. It is our goal to perpetuate
         the natural diversity of indigenous plant and animal communities,
         and when possible to restore viable populations of extirpated
         species. We recognize that man is an integral component of the
         ecosystem and has a significant impact on plant and animal
         communities. It is this ability, to determine the fate of our
         natural resources, that encumbers upon us the role of stewards.
         The Division will assume this responsibility by applying sound
         management practices based on the best available biological data.

              The Division's first responsibility is to Delaware's
         wildlife resources. All species have an intrinsic value and we
         must strive to develop and apply the necessary knowledge to
         assure their survival through responsible habitat management. We
         will encourage, manage for and support the wise use of our
         wildlife resources as long as their viability is not jeopardized.
         Good quality habitat is essential for wildlife survival. A
         dynamic balance exists between plant and animal communities;
         changes to either may upset this relationship causing
         repercussions throughout the ecosystem. A community with great
         diversity of plants and animals is more stable and therefore more
         desirable. Our approach will be to manage ecosystems, to
         maximize plant and animal diversity and thus increase stability.

              Our second responsibility is to manage our wildlife
         resources for recreational enjoyment, economic benefit and
         scientific instruction. We are committed to the concept of
         multiple use management of our natural resources provided the
         activity does not harm the resource or infringe upon the rights
         of others. Conserving our wildlife resources to provide both
         consumptive and nonconsumptive use requires careful planning and
         the application of prudent management policies.

              The following concepts form the basis of our decision-making
         philosophy used to meet the responsibilities with which we are
         charged:

         Philosophical Tenants for Managing Delaware's Wildlife Resources

         1. We are committed to managing ecosystems. We will recommend
         no action that threatens the viability of any species or
         population because this would effect the stability of the whole
         system. Exotic and pest species will not be given equal


                                    49








         consideration with native species. Their relationship to the
         ecosystem will be evaluated for adverse effects on native
         wildlife populations and human and health safety.

         2. We will manage wildlife species as viable, self supporting
         and free ranging populations. Consideration will be given to all
         species in order to maintain diversity and therefore stability
         and to maximize the variety of human experience.

         3. Restoring native extirpated species is a desirable objective
         provided their reintroduction does not adversely effect human
         health and safety.

         4. Land acquisition is desirable and necessary to preserve
         ecosystem diversity and recreational opportunities. However, the
         lands purchased will represent a complete ecological community
         without privately owned inholdings or represent an expansion of
         an existing Wildlife Area.

         5. We will consider both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses in
         our planning processes and oppose competitive uses that are
         detrimental to wildlife populations or habitats. Competitive
         land uses are those that effect the welfare of wildlife because
         they alter or destroy wildlife habitat, even though the users may
         have no conscious intent to preempt wildlife habitat per se (e.g.
         timber harvesting, mining, ditching, human and agricultural waste
         disposal, and the spread of urban areas). Note: Timber
         harvesting and some other economically-driven land alterations
         may often be compatible with, or even enhancing to, wildlife
         populations and their habitats, if these activities follow Best
         Management Practices (BMP's) which satisfactorily consider and
         address wildlife concerns.

         6. Population and habitat manipulations are acceptable
         management tools provided the viability of a species or the
         integrity of an ecosystem is not threatened.

         7. We recognize hunting and trapping as legitimate management
         tools and recreational pursuits. We will strive to meet the
         demands for hunting and trapping as long as species viability is
         not jeopardized.

         8. We recognize that some competitive land uses are desirable to
         human well being; we will mitigate for uses beyond our control
         and try to educate competitive users of the trade-offs.

         9. Fulfilling our goals requires public support. We will
         attempt to educate people to wildlife benefits and instill a
         sense of responsibility towards the resource.

         10. We recognize that most wildlife habitat is privately owned.
         We will develop a landowner wildlife habitat assistance program
         and strive to encourage landowners to expand hunting access to
         their property.


                                    50










                                    APPENDIX 2



                                      TITLE 7


                     CHAPTER 7. REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS


                             CONCERNING GAME AND FISH



                         Subchapter I. General Provisions


         S 701. Game Animals.
              The following shall be considered game animals: Mink,
         snapping turtle, raccoon, opossum, gray squirrel, otter, muskrat,
         red fox, hare, rabbit, frog, deer, and beaver. The Bryant fox-
          quirrel, otherwise known as the "Sciurus niger branti," shall be
         protected wildlife.
         s






                             REGULATION 17. SEASONS.


         Section 1. Protected Wildlife.

              It shall be unlawful to hunt, sell, ship or possess an
         species of protected wildlife except as permitted by law.-

         Section 2. Beaver.


              There shall be no season during which beaver may be hunted,
         possessed, shipped or sold, except landowners or their agents may
        .trap, possess and sell beavers causing damage on their property
         with a valid permit from the Division.























                                    51








                                     Appendix 3

         Garrisons Lake                       Observed:   8/24/90

                                              Observers:  Terri Fabean
                                                          Roger J,.*Wolfe
                                                          Randall V. Cole


              The site is located at the headwaters of Garrisons Lake
         (Kent County) approximately 20 feet upstream of the train trestle
         culvert. The dam is 51 feet across and 1.5-2 feet in height.
         This colony appears to have been abandoned, the dam having been
         there approximately 5 to 10 years (Tom Whittendale and Cathy
         Martin, pers. comm.). The dam is partially intact with a steady
         flow of water coming through open sections. The water is 4-1/2
         feet deep above the dam and 2-1/2 feet deep below. Signs of
         previous beaver activity include tree girdling and cutting, but
         there appears to be no beaver activity at this time. Forest
         composition on the south lateral side of the impoundment is 85%
         beech, while forest composition on the north lateral side is a
         diverse mixture of northern red oak, willow oak, maples and black
         gum. Sixty-five percent of the flooded surface area is vegetated
         (vegetation species listed below), while thirty-five percent of
         the impounded surface is open water. Numerous dead snags are
         present through the pond. The depth of the channel within the
         impounded area is approximately 4.5-6 feet, while the depth of
         water in vegetated areas is 1-2 feet.

         Vegetation Observed

         Smartweed (Polygonacea)
         Spatterdock (Nuphar luteum)
         Duckweed (Lemnaceae)
         Cardinal-flower (Lobelia cardinalis)
         Arrow Arum (Peltandra virginica)
         Cattail (Typha latifolia)
         Primrose willow (Primulaceae)
         Water willow (Decodon verticillatus)



         Birds


         Green-backed heron (Butorides striatus)
         Woodduck (Aix sponsa)
         Snowy egret (Egretta thula)
         Double-Crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)
         Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon)
         Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias)
         Red-Shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)








                                     52











         Trees


         Red maple (Acer rubrum)
         Willow Oak (auer-cus phellos)
         Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
         Beech (Fagus grandifolia)
         Northern rea oak (Quercus rubrum)
         magnolia (Magnolia virginiana)
         Blackjack oak (Quercus velu:Fina)








































                                     53








                                    Appendix 4

         Paradise Alley                    Surveyed:   8/28/90

                                           Observers: Terri Fabean
                                                       Randall V. Cole



             This dam is located off Paradise Alley Road (Kent County),
         1/2 mile south of the railroad tracks, in a large culvert under a
         -train trestle. The dam is intact with a steady flow of water
         coming through the middle. The dam is 31 feet across and 4-4.5
         feet in height. The water above the dam is 4-4.5 feet deep in
         the channel, tapering to shallow depths at the edges. Directly
         below the dam is a pool of water 2-5 feet in depth, shallowing-
         out downstream to a small channel.

             Signs of previous beaver activity include tree girdling and
         cutting. A beaver lodge is located upstream of the dam in the
         center of the impounded area. The lodge was built on an
         overturned tree. There appears to be no fresh sign of beaver
         activity at this time, but beaver scat specimens were found.

             Forest composition lateral to and along the margin of the
         impounded area consisted of a mixture of species including: red
         maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos), river birch
         (Betula nigra), sweet gum (Liquidambar stryaciflua), black cherry
         (Prunus serotina), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and blackjack oak
         Ouercus marilandica). Approximately 45% of the pond center is
         vegetated with a variety of species including: duckweed, water
         willow, buttonbush, sweet pepperbush, and lizard tail. Coontail
         was also present as a submergent. The amount of open pond water
         was 35%, and about 20% of the ponded area has dead snags.
         Waterbirds present included kingfisher, great blue heron, and
         wood duck. Frogs, toads, and a five-line skink were also present
         at the time of survey.




















                                    54









                                      Appendix 5

         Masseys Pond                         Observed:   8/30/90

                                              Observers:  Terri Fabean
                                                          Roger J. Wolfe
                                                          Shawn Shotzberger


              There is no present dam at this Kent County site, but beaver
         appear to be using the pond for food sources and living area.
         Two lodges were located upstream of the pond. One is on the bank
         of Jim Short's property, which is on the pond's south side in the
         lower headwaters. The other lodge is approximately 25m upstream
         on the same side, but at a location narrowed into a stream.

              Forest composition along the pond edges consists of red
         maple, northern red oak, willow oak, black willow, speckled alder
         (Alnus rugosa), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and black
         o-ak.T'he pond surface consisted of open water with no emergent
         vegetation. The pond headwaters were 75% vegetated, with 25%
         open water having a 4-5 feet deep channel. Vegetation consisted
         of an abundant amount of water willow, with a mixture of
         spatterdock (Nuphar luteum), arrow head (Sagittaria latifolia),
         jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), smartweed (Polygonum punctatum),
         pickerelweed (Pontedria cordata), cardinal flower (Lobelia
         cardinalis), and buttonbush (Ce2halanthus occidentalis). Dead
         snags were present in the stream section of the pond. The area
         upstream appeared to be flooded at-one time, but the water level
         was down at the time of survey. There were previous signs of
         beaver activity such as tree girdling and cutting.

























                                      55









                                     Appendix 6




                            BEAVER RELEASE DATA SHEET


         TAG NO.


         STREAM AND LOCATION WHERE TRAPPED:





         TRAPPER:


         DATE TRAPPED:


         STREAM AND LOCATION WHERE RELOCATED:




         DATE RELEASED:


         AGE:


         SEX:


         WEIGHT:


         NOTES:




































                                     56









                                   Appendix 7


              List of Agencies/organizations Who Have Reviewed the
                          Delaware Beaver Management Plan


         Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (DNREC)
              - Wildlife Section
              - Enforcement Section
              - Mosquito Control Section
              -Fisheries Section


         Advisory Council on Fish and Game

         Delaware Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DNREC)
              - Drainage Section
              - Conservation District Operations
              - Delaware Coastal Management Program

         Delaware Division of Water Resources (DNREC)
              - Wetlands and Aquatic Protection Branch
              - Watershed Assessment Branch


         Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation (DNREC)
              - Technical Services Section
              - Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory

         Delaware Department of Agriculture
              - Forestry Section
              - Aglands Preservation Section

         Delaware Department of Transportation
              - Division of Highways

         New Castle Conservation District


         Kent Conservation District


         Sussex Conservation District


         U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Dover)

         U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (Dover)

         U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
              - Bombay Hook NWR
              - Prime Hook NWR











                                    57









                                    Appendix 8

                      OVERVIEW OF BEAVER TRAPPING SEASONS AND
                        CONTROL PROGRAMS IN NEARBY STATES



          MARYLAND


          As of now, the Wildlife Administration responds to beaver
          complaint calls. Their methods are:

          1. The sites are reviewed and technical advice is offered to the
             landowner.
          2. Trapping beaver on a landowner's property is postponed (if
          -  possible) until the trapping season is open.
          3. If a landowner does not want to personally take care of a.
             problem, he can call a licensed trapper to take care of the
             matter (at a fee).
          4. Staff will often remove beaver themselves (District biologists
             or other staff).

                               Open Trapping Season

            January 1 - March 15   Bag Limit = 5-15 per year depending on
                                   county




          PENNSYLVANIA


          If a landowner has a beaver problem, he can take care of the
          problem himself without a permit.

          If a landowner does not want to personally take care of a
          problem, he can call a damage control officer.

          In the northeastern part of the state, beaver harvest was
          approximately 400 animals (60% done by landowners).

                               Open Trapping Seasons

          lst Season (Recreation)       December 15 - January 15
          2nd Season (Fur)              March 1 - March 23

          The annual bag limit is different throughout the state. It ranges
          from 6 to 40 per year depending on geographic location.

          If the harvest goal is met during the first trapping season, then
          the second season will be closed.









                                    58











         NEW JERSEY


         Beaver trapping season is concurrent with otter season.

                               Open Trapping Season

         February only - by lottery system
         Very limited season; 60-70 permits available statewide (annual
         limit 3 beaver, I otter).

         1990 statewide harvest: 140 - 160 beaver

         Research Unit - sets up season and bag limit

         Wildlife Control Unit responds to complaints
              (1990 = 160 complaints)

         1. Gives advice (e.g. fencing around trees; beaver pipes)
         2. May install structural control devices
         3. Live-traps and relocates about 10 to 20 beavers per year

         Site-specific permits are issued to landowners who have problem-
         beavers on their land and who did not get a statewide
         permit. These special permits are only issued for February.

         In times past, area managers would survey their areas for any
         beaver sites, done once per year for three days.



         NEW YORK


         Numerous man-hours by state personnel are spent responding to
         complaint calls.

         1.  Technical advice
         2.  If landowners are willing to install beaver pipes, the staff
             will show the landowner how to do it.
         3.  A permit will be issued to the landowner if he wants to remove
             the beaver.


                        Open Trapping Season - Split Season
                              (Example from Region 9)

                   December 14 - January 26 - No limit
                   March 7     - March 22    - No limit

         *Season lengths and baglimits can vary by region.









                                    59










         MASSACHUSETTS

         The Wildlife Section will respond to a beaver complaint call.
         They have a four-step process when responding to a call.

         1.  Site visit
             Nature of complaint
             Public health
             Public safety
         2.  May install beaver pipes.
             A site-by-site evaluation will be done before installing a pipe;
             history of complaint, food source, size of wetland that will be
             created, etc. Pipes will be utilized for wetland enhancement
             purposes.
         3.  If a landowner does not want to personally take care of a
             problem, the Division has a list of trappers to which they may
             refer.
         4.  Any-landowner who has damage to his property caused by wildlife
             (e.g. deer, beaver, etc., except for non-game species) can kill
             the animal under permit issued by the Division. Problem animals
             so killed must be buried or turned into the state.

             A data card is also issued with landowner permits or trapper
         licenses. The card is used to collect information on how many
         beaver were taken and the type of damage prompting their removal.

         Facts:
                Nuisance complaints - approximately 180 per year.
                There are 351 towns in the state, and one-third of the
                towns have had beaver complaints concerning road inundation,
                blockage of road culverts causing flooding, etc. Between
                $200,000 and $300,000 has been spent on actions taken to
                correct these problems.
                In the 1950's and again in the late 1980's, beaver were
                relocated throughout the state; it was a "quick fix" but
                the solution may have long-term negative results. The
                relocation of beaver was done to reestablish the statewide
                beaver population.

                 Open Trapping Season - (Best Management Practice)

                        November 15 to last day in February

         After January 15, the conibear #220 and #330 traps are prohibited,
         and leg-hold traps only can be used.

         75% of the trappers use conibear #220 or #330 traps, and they
         must be used as underwater sets. Leg-hold traps may also be used
         with a drowning set.

         Value of beaver - Pelt value currently low at $16

         Castor glands:     $90-100 per pound in Canadian auction
                            $45- 50 per pound at local auction


                                    60











         VIRGINIA

         1990 - 593 killed statewide (beaver complaints)

         If a landowner has a beaver problem, a control permit can be
         issued out-of-season.

         A game warden will review the complaint; if he feels there is
         a problem, he will issue the landowner a permit. Depending on
         the problem, the warden will set the number of beavers to be
         taken.
                               Open Trapping Season

                   December 1 - February 29 - No bag limit

         When fur prices are up, the beaver population goes down; when the
         fur prices are down, the population goes up.



         WEST VIRGINIA


         County Conservation Officer will respond to beaver complaint
         calls.


         1. He will give technical advice to the landowner.

         2. If the landowner still wants the beaver to be removed, the
             officer will issue a special trapping permit.

                               Open Trapping Season

         November 2 - February 29   Bag limit = 25 daily or 25 per season

         1984-85 : 523 harvested statewide
         1987-88 : 1064 harvested statewide
         1989-90 : 962 harvested statewide



         NORTH CAROLINA


         Any landowner who has damage to his property caused by wildlife
         (e.g. deer, beaver), except for non-game species, can shoot the
         nuisance animal without permit. Problem animals so killed must
         be buried or turned into the state.

         If a nuisance animal is to be trapped from an area, a permit has
         to be issued by a wildlife officer or biologist.

                               Open Trapping Seasons
                                   Three Regions

         Western:   November 7 - February 12 (no limit)
         Coastal:   December 15 - February 28
         Piedmont: December I - February 20


                                    61









                                   Appendix 9

         Written Comments About the Plan Received from Other State
         Agencies, Federal Agencies, Private Environmental Groups, or the
         Public; Public Meeting and meetings with the Advisory Council on
         Fish and Game. All entires in Appendix 9 are in chronological
         order, based upon sequential dates of distribution, receipt, or
         occurrence.















































































                                    62






















                          DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

                                        DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

                                              MEMORJAMDUM



                      TO         Dave Small

                      FROM       Bill Meredith

                      SUBJECT:   Announcement for upcoming editions of the DNREC
                                     Register

                      DATE       May 23, 1991


                      Please include the following information in the upcoming editions
                      of the DNREC Register:

                                   PUBLIC MEETING - BEAVER MANAGEMENT PLAN

                             AUGUST 15, 1991 - 7:30 P.M. - DNREC AUDITORIUM

                      To receive and review public comments about the proposed
                      statewide Beaver Management Plan, designed to promote
                      environmental benefits associated with beaver activities and to
                      contend with socioeconomic problems that beavers may cause.

                      Further information:
                         Contact Division of Fish and Wildlife, 739-4782.



























                                                  63
















                        DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONK  ENTAL CONTROL

                                       DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE


                                            M E M 0 R A N D U M


                    TO         Distribution List (DFW Personnel Only - See Below)

                    FROM       Bill Meredith

                    SUBJECT:   Review of draft Beaver Management Plan

                    DATE       May 31, 1991


                    Enclosed is a draft copy of the Beaver Management Plan for your
                    review and any written comments that you'd like to provide. You
                    can write your comments either directly on the draft text or on
                    separate paper. We need to have any written comments given to
                    either Terri Fabean or me @y no later than June 14, 1991. If we
                    don't hear from you by the end of this two-week piriod, we must
                    assume that you'll be offering no suggestions or recommendations,
                    and that the draft plan is satisfactory to you.

                    An external agency review of the plan will be done from late June
                    through mid-July (see list on next page for preliminary
                    indication of external agencies who'll be asked to review the
                    plan.) We will hold a public meeting in mid-August for citizen
                    x-evï¿½ew and to receï¿½ve publï¿½c comments. AccordIng to our DCM?
                    grant, the plan must be "finalized" by the and of September.
                    Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.







                    DFW Distribution List

                    Bill Wagner                    Rod Harmic
                    Lloyd Alexander                Rick Burritt
                    Bill Whitman                   Jim Reynolds
                    Greg Moore                     Chet Stachecki
                    Ken Reynolds                   Bill Meredith
                    Tom Whittendale                Roger Wolfe
                    Randy Cole                     Terri Fabean
                    Charlie Lesser




















                                                  64






























                     Drainage Section, DSWC/DNREC
                     Conservation District Operations (E&S/NPS), DSWC/DNREC
                     Delaware Coastal Management Program, DSWC/DNREC
                     Wetlands and Aquatic Protection Branch, DWR/DNREC
                     Watershed Assessment Branch (includes Stormwater Management
                       Program), DWR/DNREC
                     Technical Services Section, DPR/DNREC
                     Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory, DPR/DNREC
                     Delaware Division of Highways, DOT
                     Delaware Forestry Section, DOA
                     Aglands Preservation Section, DOA
                     New Castle Conservation District
                     Rent Conservation District
                     Sussex Conservation District
                     U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Dover)
                     U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (Dover)
                     Bombay Hook NWR (USFWS)
                     Prime Hook NWR (USFWS)
































                                               65





























                                               STATE OF DELAWARE
                                         DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                                             & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
                                          DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
                                                 89 KINGS HIGHW Y
                                                  P.O. Box 1401
                OFFICE OF THE                  DOVER. DELAWARE 19903
                 DIRECTOR                               June 21, 1991


                     Name


                     Address






                     Dear

                     Enclosed is a draft copy of a proposed statewide Beaver Management
                     Plan. The draft plan was prepared by the Delaware Division of Fish
                     and Wildlife. The plan's development is being supported by a one-year
                     grant from the Delaware Coastal Management Plan. The purpose of the
                     plan is to promote environmental benefits associated with beaver
                     activities, and to contend with socioeconomic problems that beavers
                     may cause.

                     We are soliciting your review and any written comments that you'd like
                     to provide. We need to receive any written comments from you @y no
                     later than July 15, 1991. If we don't hear from you by the end of
                     this three-week period, we must assume that you'll be offering no
                     suggestions or recommendations, and that the draft plan is
                     satisfactory to you. If you have any questions, please call either
                     Terri Fabean or me at 739-4782 (Little Creek Biological Field Office).

                     Further modification of the draft plan may come following further
                     internal review by the Division of Fish and Wildlife, from comments
                     provided by the Advisory Council on Fish and Game or from other state
                     and federal agencies (see distribution list below), or from the
                     general public following a public meeting planned for August 15.

                     Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

                                                        Sincerely,




                                                        William H. Meredith
                                                        Fish and Wildlife Program Manager

                     WHM*jea







                                               66
























                     cc:  William C. Wagner, II
                          H. Lloyd Alexander
                          Rodney L. Harmic
                          Chester J. Stachecki, Jr.
                          William R. Whitman
                          E. Greg Moore
                          Kenneth M. Reynolds

                     Distribution List:
                          Advisory Council on Fish and Game
                          Drainage Section, DSW/DNREC
                          Conservation District Operations, DSWC/DNREC
                          Delaware Coastal Management Program, DSWC/DNREC
                          Wetlands and Aquatic Protection Branch, DWR/DNREC
                          Watershed Assessment Branch, DWR/DNREC
                          Technical Services Section, DPR/DNREC
                          Delaware Natural Heritage inventory, DPR/DNREC
                          Delaware Division of Highways, DOT
                          Delaware Forestry Section, DOA
                          Agiands Preservation Section, DOA
                          New Castle Conservation District
                          Kent Conservation District
                          Sussex Conservation District
                          U.S. Soil Conservation District
                          U.S. Agricultural Stabilization    Conservation Service (Dover)
                          Bombay Hook NWR (USFWS)
                          Prime Hook NWR (USFWS)





























                                                 67





















                                                          July 5, 1991






                     Mr. William H. Meredith
                     Div. of Fish & Wildlife Program Manager
                     DNREC
                     89 Kings Highway
                     P.O. Box 1401
                     Dover, DE 19903

                     Dear Bill:


                           I just finish reading the proposed statewide Beaver Management
                     Plan. I must admit that I have always felt sad that we americans
                     almost brought the beaver to extinction.

                           I have asked Lloyd Simmons, Manager at Redden State Forest and
                     Mike Brown, Manager at Blackbird State Forest to also review the
                     draft since they have dealt directly with beaver on the State
                     Forest.


                           In addition I cannot recall at any time when our foresters
                     working with the private forest landowner has ever reported a
                     detrimental beaver problem.    So I can only conclude that if the
                     beaver has caused a timber management problem, the private
                     landowner has not made it one of his concerns.

                           I would like to present a couple of points for your consider-
                     ation.   First, page 18: "Quite often timber of low commercial
                     value".   Swamp white oak has a very high commercial value in
                     domestic veneers and cooperage.       Also, it is sought out by
                     Europeans and Asians as a substitute to true white oak (Quercus
                     alba).   Second, page 42: "We have identified 13. categories of
                     votential Plan participants:11 I do not see forestry as a partici-
                     pant in your listing or matrix. I think you need someone to speak
                     for the trees that the beaver are eating and using for housing.
                     Third, page 52: "Planning lorocesses and oppose competitive uses" ...










                                                  68


















                 William Meredith
                 July 5, 1991
                 Page 2






                 ITCompetitive land uses.. (e.q. timber harvestincr, etc,"        The
                 statement, "no conscious intent", I assume includes man and beaver.
                 Oppose competitive uses (e.g. timber harvesting) . I suggest oppose
                 harvesting that is detrimental to the residual forest stand and
                 beaver habitat, but support harvesting that incorporate Forestry
                 Best Management Practices for to co-benefits of timber and beaver.

                      One additional note, the Forestry Section has a federally
                 funded program titled "Stewardship Incentive Program". This is a
                 cost-share for forest landowners to perform a conservation
                 activities, the development of wildlife habitat is one of those
                 programs. Jim Wilber form you wildlife staff is a member of the
                 stewardship committee. I would contact him for what he is doing
                 and how you could use these funds to help landowners in there
                 timber/wildlife practices.

                      Thanks for the opportunity.

                                                     Sincerely,




                                                     Timothy A. Kaden
                                                     Forester Supervisor

                 TAK/d

                 cc: Roland Derrickson, Acting Forestry Administrator



















                                                 69










                                    United States Department of the interior
                                                 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                    41                       BOMBAY HOOK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
                                                       R.D. #1, BOX 147
                                                   SMYRNA, DELAWARE 19977


                                                         July 8, 1991


                      Dr. William H. Meredith
                      Fish & Wildlife Program Manager
                      Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife
                      P.O. Box 1401
                      Dover, Delaware 19903

                      Dear Bill:

                      Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft copy of the Beaver Management
                      Plan. It was very comprehensive and well done. I only have two minor comments:

                      1.  Page 24: Our greatest problem (Public Lands - Conservation/Recreation
                          Area) with beavers is their habit of plugging water control structures
                          when we are actively trying to manage habitat for waterfowl, usually in
                          the "drawdown" phase of impoundment management. You may wish to address
                          this.

                      2.  Page 2 : Even though national wildlife refuges could be potential release
                          sites in certain instances; the policy is not to introduce animals of any
                          kind on a refuge without extensive tests to rule out transmission of disease
                          to extant wildlife populations. There would be more paperwork "hoops" to
                          jump through than release sites on other public or private lands.

                      Again, I appreciate the opportunity to review the plan. Biologist Frank Smith
                      of my staff also reviewed the document.


                                                         Sincerely,
                                                    ,:::Paul D. D 'ly
                                                         Refuge Manago'r
                                                         Bombay Hook/Prime Hook Refuges

                      PDD/sms

















                                                         70






















                                                 STATE oFj DELAWARE
                                 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
                                      DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
                                                   89 KINGS HIGHWAY
                                                    P.O. Box 1401
                 OFFICE OF THE                   DOVER. DILAWARE 19903        TZLIEPHOHL (302) 739 - 4A I I
                    DIRECTOR


                      July 15, 1991


                      TO:  Bill Meredith, Fish and wildlife
                      Fr:  Kevin Donnelly, District Operations..
                      Re:  Beaver Management Plan
                      overall, I am impressed with the breadth and depth of the plan.
                      It is well organized and well written.      My comments should be
                      considered  to reflect the views of the New Castle and Kent
                      districts.  Sussex district indicated that they were working with
                      Dick Smith to ensure coordination with a key component of their
                      operation.
                      One of the first questions that comes to my mind when reading this
                      report is  "Who is our audience?".      Was this written f or the
                      scientific community, key decision makers or the general public?
                      Will it be used as the technical reference for future policies or
                      is it part of the department's initial policy for beaver
                      management?   The answers to these questions will determine the
                      final content and format of this plan.
                      If it is written for decision makers or general consumption then
                      we need to simplify the language, shorten the paragraphs and
                      sentences and make it more visual. I would hope the I&E section
                      has software such as Right Writer that can analyze a document and
                      offer suggestions for improving readability.
                      In terms of format, perhaps it should be reorganized to clarify
                      what issues need decisions, where more study is needed and where
                      we are relatively certain of our position?. I would suggest that
                      our target audience dictates whether or not the first section of
                      the report addresses biology or the roles and responsibilities of
                      the agencies charged with implementing such a plan.
                      To make the document more user friendly I would like to see an
                      Executive Summary, approximately 1-1.5 pages long, that succinctly
                      spells out the who# what, why, where and how much of the draft
                      plan. This summary should be included as part of the plan and be
                      able to stand alone if necessary.    The section entitled General
                      Policy and Plan Purpose is a good start. We khow from past








                                                71










                    experiences that our elected decision makers are not likely to read
                    this entire document.    The summary should provide them with the
                    most important information within your plan.
                    I hope that we can  improve the graphics, especially Figures 1-4-
                    Our GIS section and their computers should be able to assist in
                    this effort even with the limitations of budget and copier
                    technology.    our society thrives on the visual display of
                    information; we need to capitalize on this fact if we can.
                    I like to now concentrate on some specific concerns.      The first
                    one centers around Table 1. The last sentence in paragraph 1 on
                    page 43 reads 11... the advisory input of all interested parties
                    must be seriously considered-"     The matrix on page 44 fails to
                    communicate this commitment to coordination. A matrix, by design,
                    displays discrete boundaries of responsibility. This is not the
                    message that you want to convey.
                    Specifically, I am concerned that the districts, who are identified
                    as the primary implementers of structural activities, along with
                    the primary or partial responsibility for the long term maintenance
                    and repair of many structures possibly effected by beaver, are not,
                    at least at this point, displayed as part of the team responsible
                    for determining either the problem or the corrective action. In
                    most cases the authority to determine the problem and the action
                    @ever includes a representative from the group charged with the
                    implementation of the action.
                    We need to go beyond the matrix and develop a table or figure that
                    illustrates the level of coordination the authors of the plan
                    describe on page 43.   Without this extra step, it may be perceived
                    that the plan contains a flaw in it's approach for assessing a
                    problem and devising a mutually agreeable solution.
                    The districts can provide help in implementing the recommendation
                    of developing a cost-share program(s) to assist in managing the
                    states beaver population.    All three districts have many years
                    experience in cost-share programs and their experience will prove
                    very valuable no matter what form this cost-share program takes.
                    You must understand that such a program, under our current
                    allocation, must compete for funds targeted towards our current
                    water quality priorities.
                    other changes that you may wish to consider include:
                    pg 21 - Change Delaware Forestry Section to 11DOA - Forestry
                            Section"






















                                                  72




















                     pg 26    Should the tax ditch category be expanded to include the
                              lands drained by them?. 'I am concerned with not
                              specifically mentioning ag land in this prioritization.
                              Farmers are going to want to know where they place on
                              this list.

                     pg 26    For consistency sake this list and the one describing
                              beaver problems on page 42 should be the same. I mention
                              it because rural private land is listed last on page 42
                              and this may raise a flag in the agricultural community.

                     pg 29    Criteria #3 - Where did the 20 yards and 5 feet come
                              from? I'm sure the ag community will want to know.
                              Perhaps it should be stated in a less definitive manner
                              until the plan has undergone public review.    (Bill, I'll
                              work on this.)

                     pg 33    Websters' not withstanding, "dispatch", in my opinion
                              is a weasel word that government uses too often. Let's
                              say what we mean and use words that people understand.
                              How about changing the word "dispatch" to "annihilate" or
                              "exterminate"?

                     Finally, shouldn't the table of contents contain a separate list
                     of figures and tables?

                     Bill, this is a real strong effort for,first review draft. Let me
                     know where and how I can help this effort and I'll do all I can.
                     I'm sure the districts feel the same way.

                     cc:  John Hughes
                          Andy Manus
                          Dick Smith
                          Larry Irelan/Andy Burger
                          Art Malinowski/Ernie Zimmerman
                          Beth Horsey/Cashar Evans
                          Fred Mott
























                                                 73


















                                                                                         STATE OF DELAWARE
                                                                              DEPARTMENT OF N       ATURAL RESOURCES
                                                                                    & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
                                                                              DivisION OF WATER RESOURCES
                                                                                     89 KINGS HIGHWAY. P.O. BOX 14901
                              SU:FACEWATER MANAGEMENT SECTION                            DOVER. DELAWARE 19903                                             (302) 739 - 5726
                               IN TERSHEO ASSESSMENT BRANCH                                                                                                (302) 739 - A590
                               POLLUTION CONTROL 014ANCH                                                                                                   1302) 739 - 5731
                               FACILITY SUPPORT BRANCH                                                                                                     (302) 739 - 5081
                               WrTL^NOS & AOUATIC p*arECTION BRANCH                         MEMOR)MUM                                                      (302) 739- 4691


                                         TO:             Bill Meredith


                                         THRU:           Bill Moyer
                                                                          _ I., I r4@,
                                         FROM:           Dave Saveiki-
                                                                            B -\--)

                                         SUBJECT:        Draft Beaver Management Plan


                                         DATE:           July 15, 1991



                                                 The     wetlands and Aquatic Protection Branch (WAPB) has completed
                                         review of       the Division of Fish and Wildlife's draft Beaver Management Plan.
                                         We welcome the opportunity to provide our input on draft plans such as
                                         these which affect wetland and subaqueous land resources and would like to
                                         continue to be involved in providing input in your Division's wetland and
                                         aquatic management policies and programs, preferably as early an possible
                                         in the process involving such efforts. Early collaboration in such efforts
                                         can only lead to better, more implementable programs.

                                                 Regarding the draft Beaver Management Plan, the WAPB supports the
                                         objectives of the plan and recognizes the benefits and challenges of
                                         management of beaver compatible with other ecological and social
                                         considerations.


                                                 we have several               substantive comments regarding the draft plan to
                                         include:


                                                 1) Include in Section VIII l.A. under potential beaver release site
                                         criteria to be considered, language addressing extant site characteristics
                                         relative to rare or endangered plant or animal species and unique aquatic
                                         and wetland community types.                     This would insure that otherwise beneficial
                                         beaver induced hydrological and ecological alterations do not conflict with
                                         other sensitive resources (e.g. extended hydroperiod causing unacceptable
                                         damage to Atlantic white cedar communities).                                 Addition of such language
                                         would be consistent with other textual sections addressing this issue found
                                         on pages 22 and 24 of the plan.














                                                                                          74





















                          MEMORANDUM
                          Page Two
                          7/15/91

                               2)  Criteria considering potential agriculture conflicts at potential
                          beaver release sites (Section VIII l.A.3.) may not adequately address,
                          through the proposed 20 yard isolation between potential wetland edge and
                          cropland, agriculture conflicts since the "potential wetlands edge" may be
                          difficult to predict due to the uncertainty of the ultimate elevation of
                          any beaver damns, the variable success of beaver flow-through pipes at
                          managing water levels, and the relatively flat topography of many sites.

                               3) We request that the Wetlands and Aquatic Protection Branch play an
                          active advisory role for those situations affecting wetlands or subaqueous
                          lands in assisting in management decisions as outlined in Section X numbers
                          1 (determination of a problem) and 2 (determination of desirable action)
                          for all five listed types of beaver-caused problems.

                               Management of beaver impacts on wetlands and subaqueous lands is but
                          one opportunity available enabling our two agencies to work proactively
                          toward achievement of wise management of our aquatic habitat resources. We
                          anticipate this potential and look forward to you response.     Please feel
                          free to call us if you should have any questions regarding our comments.



                          DES/ca


                          cc: Jerry Esposito
                              Bob Zimmerman
                              Tony Pratt


                          DES9159












































                                                         75





















                                              STATE OF DELAWARE
                                         DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                                            & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
                                        1_-)fV1SION OF PARKS & RECREATION
                                                89 KIr4GS HIGHWAY
                                                 P.O. Sox 1401
                                              DovER. DELAWARE 19903

                                                7 August 1991

                                             X E M 0 R A N D U X

                    TO: William Meredith, Terri Fabean

                    FROM: Leslie D. Trew, Keith Clancy, David Rothstein, Delaware
                             Natural Heritage Inventory

                    SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Beaver Management Plan by the
                                Division of Fish and Wildlife

                    cc: William Wagner, Chazz Salkin, Susan Laporte


                    We have reviewed the Delaware Beaver Management Plan drafted by
                    the Division of Fish and Wildlife and would like to provide our
                    comments on this plan.

                    The staff of the Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory would prefer
                    that no extrinsic manipulative techniques be employed to manage
                    the beaver.   A hands-off policy would be the ideal situation.
                    However, we are aware that there have been numerous complaints
                    recently regarding the beaver and its activities and that in
                    certain instances an active role of management is warranted in
                    order to alleviate hardships created by beaver activities. In an
                    ideal world the beaver and humans could live together
                    harmoniously.

                    It was mentioned, although briefly, in the management plan of
                    instituting an educational program to emphasize the environmental
                    importance of beavers and their activities.   we strongly believe
                    that education can be an important tool in alleviating some
                    problems associated with beavers by making the public more aware
                    of the value of the beaver and more tolerant of its activities.
                    The recent boom in housing developments throughout much of
                    Delaware adjacent to, and in some cases in, wetlands has
                    undoutedly resulted in many recent beaver complaints from the
                    public. We encourage the Division of Fish and wildlife to pursue
                    a beaver education program vigorously as part of their overall
                    beaver management strategy.




                                               1


                                 Ve&&-aw"a qAAW 0C4X2 4ee#e,0e1&
                                             7-






                                               76










                    Specific Heritage concerns abou  t the beaver plan:
                    Potential Relocation Sites/Transplanting Beavers
                    Relocation sites must be chosen with extreme care and long-term
                    monitoring of these sites should be enacted to ensure that
                    transplanted beavers remain on site.      Translocation of nuisance
                    beavers is recommended only in situations where suitable habitat
                    is available. Proposed sites should be thoroughly surveyed for
                    rare species as well as unique natural communities.        While the
                    influence of a beaver population in a habitat may be beneficial
                    to some species (e.g. waterfowl, herons and allies), it may not
                    be for others. Translocation of beavers will certainly alter the
                    habitat (assuming they remain in their new home) and could
                    adversely affect insect, herpetile, and bird populations.        Plant
                    species are most vulnerable to these changes. we would like to
                    have the opportunity to review potential release sites for
                    presence/absence of rare species.     Flooding of a site by beaver
                    damning could destroy populations of rare plants or similarly
                    have negative impacts on a unique or otherwise pristine (i.e. in
                    a relative sense) natural community.       For example, a site in
                    Connecticut containing 15 rare plant species was             severely
                    impacted by beaver activities (Connecticut Natural           Heritage
                    @rogram). Likewise, a lake in New York which was dammed resulted
                    in the. loss of the federally endangered orchid, Isotria
                    medeoloides, in the wooded areas surrounding the lake (The Nature
                    Conservancy, New York Chapter). We would like to avoid the need
                    to relocate beavers a second time in the event that the beaver's
                    new home contained rare species or unique natural communities
                    that would be impacted by the animal's activities.
                    The problem of habitat alteration also exists in extant beaver
                    ponds.    Removal of a population would result in water flow
                    augmentation, a change in water quality, and the alteration of
                    the habitat.    Before a beaver is relocated, it must be known
                    which other species and natural communities will be affected, and
                    how will they be affected.

                    Translocation is a popular method in beaver management, but one
                    which often results in unforeseen consequences.          Transplanted
                    beaver have been known to range widely from their new dwellings.
                    Research has documented movements from 5-200 miles from the
                    release site (see Hibbard, E.A. 1958. Movement of beavers
                    transplanted in North Dakota. J. Wildlife Managem. 22:209-211).
                    will frequent monitoring occur in order to determine if the
                    transplanted beaver are remaining in their new homes.
                    How will relocation sites be chosen, particularly those potential
                    sites that are on private land, to ensure that the beavers will
                    not be causing problems to the public in the future?        Long-term
                    monitoring should be implemented to track breeding success and
                    any dispersal events from the site.
                    A beaver colony is more appropriately described as a "family unit"
                    since beavers exhibit a high degree of fidelity. Beavers often
                    mate for life and the family frequently consists of from 4-6


                                                2









                                                   77









                    individuals that may represent several generations.              Site
                    fidelity is a factor in familial interrelations. A good
                    understanding of the sub-population at the site is necessary.
                    The potential for disruption of the breeding cycle as well as the
                    family unit is apparent.       Another important consideration in
                    translocating beavers is the fact that the process Is labor-
                    intensive and frequently the adults need to be anesthetized prior
                    to relocation (.Seal, U.S. and T.J. Kreeger. 1987. Chemical
                    immobilization of furbearers. Pages 191-215, in M. Novak, ed.
                    Wild furbeArer management and conservation in North America.
                    Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources).
                    As you are aware much of the beaver's habitat has been destroyed
                    by human activities.     Each year more of this habitat is being
                    encroached upon. It is difficult for the beaver to go about the
                    job of being a beaver. Perhaps the Division of Fish and Wildlife
                    or DNREC could become actively involved in the review process for
                    development projects to help these projects avoid impacting
                    beaver habitats (such as building far enough away from wetland
                    habitats to avoid any flooding problems caused by beaver dams).

                    structural Alteration of Lodges

                    Structural alteration of the lodge is a good alternative that
                    should be pursued; although it may require funds above those
                    needed for relocation dependant on the method employed.
                    Monitoring will be necessary.       Another consideration is that
                    methods utilized will be experimental and will need to be fine-
                    tuned from site-to-site. Readjustment of the water levels will
                    allow the beavers to remain in the area, as well as placate the
                    complainant. If possible methods to alter water levels should be
                    attempted before beaver relocation.       As the beaver plays an
                    integral role in the ecosystem, water flow alteration should be
                    conducted with the habitat in mind.

                    Remedial Response Optio    ns if a Substantive Beaver-related
                    socioeconomic Problem is occurring
                    @hile a study of beaver lodge locations has been conducted, there
                    is little information available regarding site/statewide
                    populations.    An extensive population/breeding ecology survey
                    should be undertaken prior to the implementation of the proposed
                    management practices -   Estimation of numbers of individuals in
                    each family is time consuming and probably impractical.             A
                    knowledge of breeding success, dispersal rates and distances and
                    sex ratio for Delaware's beavers is important if a population is
                    to be minimally disrupted.

                    Translocation of individuals and structural alteration of dams
                    are the most viable options presented in the plan.             While
                    acceptable, these measures should only be used as a last resort.
                    There are a variety of control methods which were not discussed
                    in the plan, which should be initially explored at each site
                    which are outlined below.     Any alternative selected should be
                    implemented on a site-by-site basis, following thorough


                                                3








                                                  78










                    examination of the beaver population, including a comprehensive
                    biological inventory of proposed release and existing sites* The
                    sterilization, dispatching and public trapping of beavers are
                    extreme management measures, and for reasons to be discussed, are
                    not recommended.

                    Alternative Control Measures

                    Individual trees may be protected by enclosing the bottom 1 m
                    with heavy wire mesh, hardware cloth, or galvanized metal.
                    Volunteers from the Nevada Humane Society wrapped 1200 cottonwood
                    trees to prevent beaver-related damage.

                    Commercial deer repellents may deter beavers, but may have an
                    unpleasant odor (de Almedia, M.H. et al. 1979. Nuisance furbearer
                    damage control in urban and suburban areas. Wild furbearer
                    management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of
                    Natural Resources). Beavers may avoid trees painted with diluted
                    repellent (1:50) for three years or more.       Experiments regarding
                    the effectiveness of this method show a learned intolerance of an
                    area to which repellent has been applied.

                    A short-term solution may include artificial feeding.           Placing
                    food in an acceptable den area has proven to be a successful
                    alternative, allowing one dam to be dismantled, while another one
                    is created in an appropriate area.         The reliability of this
                    method is unknown.

                    Artificial scent mounds are effective in deterring transient
                    beaver from using existing but uninhabited lodges (Muller-
                    Schwarze, D.     n.d. Canadian Beaver at Acadia National Park.
                    National Park Service Cooperative Research Unit) -              Castor
                    secretion is natural and is released as a territorial marking.
                    So effective is this method, that sometimes even resident beaver
                    are affected (Svendson, G.E. and W.D. Huntsman. 1988.         A f ield
                    bioassay of beaver castoreum and some of its components.            Am.
                    Midl. Nat. 120:144-9.)

                    Exclusion fencing of small critical areas such as culverts,
                    drains, and small ponds or lakes may prevent damage (Miller, J.E.
                    1983.   Beavers.     Prevention and control of wildlife damage.
                    University of Nebraska).

                    Electrified barriers can be highly successful in           controlling
                    beaver flooding at sites where the activity of            beavers is
                    otherwise acceptable.     These systems work best in areas with
                    little public exposure as vandalism may be a problem (Muller and
                    Schwarze, n.d. On a study of the behavioral and            population
                    ecology of the Canadian beaver at Acadia National Park. National
                    Park Service Cooperative Research Unit, SUNY, Syracuse, NY. 86
                    pp)-

                    Availability of winter food supply is the most important factor
                    affecting beaver distribution and abundance.           Hence, it is
                    theoretically possible to affect beaver population through


                                                 4









                                                    79









              manipulations of the vegetation (Hill, E.P. 1982; slough and
              Sadleir, 1977).    In general, activities which favor young woody
              deciduous growth will favor the beaver.           other management
              practices may hinder the success of beaver at a site.            This
              option may not be advantageous in Delaware due to the beavers'
              opportunistic feeding habits.

              Beaver damage to roads and culverts may be prevented by
              anticipating the likelihood of beaver activity and properly
              designing the road or stream crossing.         Relocating roads or
              edifices may be more complicated, and would have to be
              coordinated with DELDOT. The study of beaver distribution should
              be substantive enough to make recommendations to city, county and
              state planners. People actively involved with beaver management
              should regularly attend planning and development meetings.
              Sterilization, Dispatching and Public Trapping Season

              These methods should be avoided if possible. As mentioned,
              sterilization is costly, and also requires the resources for live
              trapping.   Pre- and post-operative care are required as well.
              This method is not suggested as its effects on the population are
              irreversible and its effectiveness in population control is
              questioned.

              Dispatching of problem beavers is not recommended for a variety
              of reasons.     As discussed earlier, the stability of the
              population is dependent upon monogamy, a 3-year maturity cycle
              and familial relations.       The dispatching of one or more
              individuals may have unanticipated affects on a "family".
              Likewise, the beaver is an integral facet of its environment.
              The elimination    of the beaver from its habitat may have a
              resounding impact on numerous species.

              At this point in time, a public trapping season is premature.
              Without a firm knowledge of statewide abundance, one cannot
              effectively regulate trapping.      Determining the      appropriate
              number of beavers for a particular area or management   unit can be
              a difficult and often subjective decision.         Your example of
              having a statewide harvest of 300 beavers per year would deplete
              the current state population by 40%, assuming a total of 750
              beavers. A harvest of one-third of the population has been
              suggested by researchers, with the stipulation that season length
              and localities be varied (Hill, 1982; Novak, 1987b; Ermer, E.M.
              1988. Manageing beaver in New York. The conservationist. State of
              New York.)

              Despite the difficulty that is sometimes encountered in totally
              removing beavers from an area, their confined ecological limits
              and low reproductive rate, together with the ease with which they
              may be trapped, make beaver vulnerable to overharvest. Avoiding
              beaver problems through regulated harvest recently has become
              more difficult because low pelt prices in some areas discourage
              many trappers.



                                          5










                                                  80






















                  The possibility of capturing non-target species is high. Raptors
                  and herons are most susceptible, but many other species have been
                  caught in leghold traps.

                  The estimate of 750-1500 individuals is wide-ranging. It may not
                  represent a stable population.    A regulated season would have
                  dramatic impacts on habitat, and non-target species.            As
                  mentioned in your plan, this method is imprecise. A skewed sex
                  ratio may result from large-scale    trapping and unpredictable
                  population fluctuations should be    anticipated.    Likewise, a
                  regulated season may not effectively put an end to the problem
                  beaver(s). Alternative means which    operate on a site-by-site
                  basis are preferred.
                  p
                  All management techniques should be  geared to nuisance beavers;
                  those which occur in already developed areas.    Anticipation and
                  proper planning for new developments should eliminate much of the
                  problems associated with beavers. They do not become pests until
                  humans encroach on their breeding grounds.

                  We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Beaver Management
                  Plan and we hope that you will give serious consideration to the
                  concerns addressed above by the Delaware Natural Heritage
                  Inventory.





























                                               81




















                            DEPARTME11T OF NATURAL RESOURCES a ENVIRONMOnAL CONTROL

                                           DIVISION OF FISH & WILDLIFE

                                               MEMOR,ANDUM


                             TO: Bill Wagner, Lloyd Alexander, Bill Whitman, Greg Moore,
                                 Ken Reynolds, Rod Harmic, Rick Burritt, Chet Stachecki

                          FROM:  Bill_t4eredith, Terri Fabean
                                     1::@@       7A_ YA Z
                      SUBJECT:   Propoge-dImmediate Action-Steps to Implement the Beaver
                                 Management Plan

                          DATE:  August 14, 1991


                      The latest draft of the Beavdr Management Plan distributed to you
                      (August, 1991) had a blank Section X111: "Proposed Immediate
                      Action-Steps to Implement the Plan". Based upon written comments
                      received to date about the Plan, and on three recent meetings in
                      which we received Division and Department input, we've prepared
                      the draft text for Section XIII (see enclosed). The recently
                      received input was primarily informed opinions about varied
                      topics, and sometimes revealed differences of opinion amongst the
                      contributors, or sometimes did not mash with technical facts in
                      the Plan; however, most input offered was decipherable and will
                      strengthen the Plan. We've done the best that we could in
                      devising 8 proposed action steps, and believe that all of these
                      recommendations are consistent with the Plan's content and with
                      what we've heard from you. However, since we also know that
                      suggesting anything to do about beavers always seems to elicit
                      counterpoints, we won't be too surprised if you'll differ with
                      some of the proposed actions.

                      What we now need is for you to edit the attached, both
                      conceptually and for "wordsmithing." We need to have this
                      Section finalized, along with any policy or organizational
                      decisions that may have to be made, by no later than August 30th.
                      The Plan's final version must be completed and printed by late
                      September. If we don't hear from you by August 30th, we must
                      assume that the 8 proposed action steps are satisfactory to you
                      and, as such, they'll appear in the final plan. Where policy or
                      organizational decisions have to be made, we request that such be
                      made by the appropriate authorities and be conveyed to us in a
                      clear, timely manner. If you can take the time, you may want to
                      give us some verbal feedback (for matters over which you have
                      pressing concerns) before tomorrow night's public meeting, which
                      would help us to give a stronger presentation and avoid making
                      mistakes.

                      Thanks for your cooperation and assistance.

                      WHM:Jea





                                                    82










                                 PUBLIC MEETINGS



        I. Attendance at Public  Meeting on August 15, 1991 (DNREC
        Building, Dover, DE) for plan presentation and question-and-
        answer period; public was given until September 6, 1991 to
        provide any written comments which individuals or organizations
        wished to submit.


             Carl Hughes, Delaware City, DE
             Fred M. Goldsborough, Smyrna, DE
             Mary J. Stachecki, Harrington, DE
             John Stevenson, Townsend, DE
             J. D. Metzger, Wilmington, DE
             D. Scherger, Dover, DE
             Robert Piacinski, Dover, DE
             Mr. R. A. Raley, Lewes, DE
             Mrs. R. A. Raley, Lewes, DE
             Bud Holland, Townsend, DE (New Castle Trappers Assoc.)
             E. D. Buper, Dover, DE
             Leslie G. Porter, Wilmington, DE (Delaware Action for Animals)

             William C. Wagner II, DFW/DNREC
             H. Lloyd Alexander, DFW/DNREC
             Chester J. Stachecki, Jr., DFW/DNREC
             Jim Reynolds, DFW/DNREC
             Paynter Lynch, DFW/DNREC
             Dick Nutter, DFW/DNREC
             Randall V. Cole, DFW/DNREC
             Roger J. Wolfe, DFW/DNREC

             Terri Fabean, DFW/DNREC
             William H. Meredith, DFW/DNREC

        II.  Meetings with the Advisory Council on Fish and Game; short
        presentations and question-and-answer peTiloaiT.-'

             1) June 4, 1991 - Short overview and distribution of draft
                 plan.

             2)  August 27, 1991 - Plan overview and slide presentation
                 on beaver biology/ecology.
















                                        83










                                                            FOR NEW ENGLAND FAX 4018464qMO                                                            PAGE 01


                                                                                                                                                  2qRends
                                                                                                                                                  of
                                                                                                                                                  Animals



                                             kb




                                                                    August q1q5, q199q1


                                                                    Dept. of Natural Resources
                                                                    and Environmental Control

                                                                    Att.: Terri Fabean, Div. of
                                                                    Fish and Wildlife.




                                                                    Dear Me. Fabean:


                                                                             As I indicated in our telephone conversation
                                                                    this morning, Friends of Animals, Inc. is anxious
                                                                    to assist any individual, organization, governmen-
                                                                    tal body or agency in their effort to eliminate or
                                                                    mitigate the problems associated with the expanding
                                                                    beaver population in your state. Obviously, we are
                                                                    committed to the exclusive implementation of non-
                                                                    lethal measures.

                                                                             Please consider us to a resource at your dis-
                                                                    posal in regard to the above matter.





                              Prbwun rend, PqMMd9qM                                                                         sincerely,

                             a NNIONAL MqMDOUqMM&
                                  qhqo q0qMq" so qVq"                                                                                                                  q-
                                  qMqaq"qMqC qCq4q0qWOqM6qM
                                  an "San                                                                                 Steve Ruggeri
                                  qUMOqP6qW q00qM 0qWq4q1q4q0
                             L qCqOqMPOqMq'2q" q08q04q"q;                                                                              wildlife Policy Dir.
                                  q" VON am 8q"qVqa 4qMI
                                  qN2qM VW% qN6qM "a q"8qM
                                  am mom
                                  It' q,q, q(0qM q5q5q*q.qG2qM
                              qNqEw qcqma4q"4q" o8q"2q"q.
                                  qU2 qS6qWqMqW qFq.q0 qR8q"
                                        Aqfqtqeq#   q1q028qW

                                              qWqoq.q"q2q0
                                4q)8qF
                                4q400qoqr







                                                                                   84
 










                                            AUG-15-91:Thu 14:45 HSUS-MARO                                                                                                                                              P0
                                                                    N8qE                   hilqld-AfqfillifqiC Itegional qOfqfqicc
                                               4qV                            J@          0qWirfley S(qpiare
                                                                                         270 Houle 20q6
                                                                                         Flindcrs. New Jersey 0783qg;
                                                                                         q(201q) 027-SGqIqI
                                                         4q&8qN                            FAX '8qU4qSqE8qR--(201) 927-5617


                                           OIFFICERS
                                            K. Will-am Wisarrkim
                                            Chak-Man of Ift Board
                                            Coloman sulica, Ezq.
                                            charrmatt Emotilus                                                          OUTGOING                           - - - - - - - -
                                            O.J. Ramsey, ESQ.
                                            V40 Cqurmorl
                                            Or. Amy Freeman Loa                                 F A C S I M I L qE                               TRANSMISSION
                                            Secretary
                                            John A. Hoyt
                                            Aresidant

                                            Paul 0. Irwin
                                            qb0curfive Vko qfqtsidanY                              BILL q1q1qBRIDqETH                                               2qM8qM: AUGUST 15, 1991
                                               Treasurer
                                            Patricia FoqfqtA
                                            Soniw Vice qfqtside"(
                                            Mufdaugh Stuart MAddem. Esq.               qF2qM4: BOB 4qREDER                                                        RE: BEAVER DAMAGE & CONTROL
                                            Vo Podo"ISofea Counsol

                                            Patrick S. Parties
                                            vxs Prasidenq Services
                                            Of. John W. Grandy
                                            Vke pfestdonrlwaalife 4
                                              EAV00111neftf                            4qZqiIS qI4qESqSAqGqE CCqNSqL2qM OF q7HqIS PAGE PLUS 9                                                               PAGES qFqO2qLqt2qZ%2qM2qZ.
                                            Phyllis Wright
                                            Vice                         Anl-&Is       SPECIAL q1q1q4SqI4qMC8qTIMqIS OR CC8q*8qM8qM
                                            Dr. M1q0301 W. Fox
                                            Woo qfqtsidont1form Animals &
                                              fil;oornscs



                                            Dr. Carat 9r*wrwmg
                                            Calff"Arl GUM@. Esq.
                                            Irene Evans
                                            111togina, Gsuar l1rarikomborg
                                            Harold 1q. Gardiner
                                            Allce A. Gray
                                            Or. Jano Goodall
                                            Paul Rencks
                                            GI I
                                             livia Humnicl,to
                                            Los io FR. Inglis
                                            01 'Amy Froeman Lit
                                            Jack W. Lydman
                                            Virgin 14 Lynch
                                            Mani pripperons
                                            O.J. ptamsey. qUq,
                                            Marilyn 0. Saylor
                                            Robot Sorock
                                            Srcrokl4q4owal
                                            John E. Tah
                                            Cairroll ThOtt
                                            Vlqofqs Wqobqaqr
                                            Mqoqbqeqrqt qFq. Walborn. Esq.
                                            Marilyn qWqilqhqcqlqrqn
                                            qXq. qWqiqtqlqiqaqrqn Wiseman


                                            11q10qNOqRqAqIlqlqy
                                            Aids, Flemming
                                            Virginia Mqilqlqikqoqn                                                                                                                                   q'qNqaql8qlqonq.q18q1 4q10q1qcqad4qqquqaqrqlqeqrqsq;
                                                     Wyoqth
                                                                                                                                                                                                    12quqc 0quqtqtqirqnrqinc 8qSqoc8qivqiqly
                                                                                                                                                                                                      of q18qhqe 0qvqiqlqi0qlqlqed States
                                                                                                                                                                                                          2100 tq. Street. qN%qv
                                                                                                                                                                                                  q%q%q'qjqiqshiqfqigqloqlql. qDC q2q00:q17





                                                                                                                          85
 














                                                                                    The IUMOne SocqictY of the United States
                                                                                    bild-Atlantqic Regional Office
                                                                                    Bartley Square
                                                                                    270 Route 206
                                                                                    Fqlanqdcrs, NJ 07S36
                                                                                    (201q) 927-5611


                                                                                                                                  August 15, 1991
                                              2100 L SIM,-% NqW
                                              Washingqwri. VC 20037

                                              qQN-FICERS                               Hr. William qMerideth
                                              K William Wiseman
                                              Chairman of qW OqW4                       Delaware Fish and Wildlife
                                              Coltinan Burks. Fqw,                     Dover, Delaware
                                              Chd&Mq" qfqtontus                                                              -------
                                              04 Almsery, EqM                          FAX Transmitted 8/15/q91
                                              Yke Chairman
                                              Or. Amy Frqmmain Let
                                              saciotery
                                              John A. Hoyt
                                              pqmVem                                   Re: Proposed Beaver Management Controls
                                              Pow 0. IMVIA                                        HqSUS-MARqD Case q0 91-271
                                              qbqwud" Vk# Maidenly
                                                possurer            -
                                              Roger, A. Kqfqtlat E-q%
                                              VICS AV511011knaGollq" CALIA111         Dear Mr. qMrqideth,

                                              5q0410st STAFF
                                              vics: rRvstoqmIll                        It is our understanding that your agency in
                                              Patricla litorkan                       considering methods to control damage caused by
                                              sefda? V/ce Assla"t
                                              Owe A. oldIgn                           wild beavera, and that a discussion oqf that
                                              Gowammom A018qMAR                       issue will be hold this evening in Dover.
                                              Patty A. Ancth
                                              qfqto Edocaroon
                                              Ix Michael W. 19ox                      If it were not for the late notice# The Humane
                                              Aerm Animals 6 946mics                  Society of the United States (HSUS) would have
                                              or. jonn W. Grendy                      had a representative qin'attandenceo                                                   We regret
                                              wpoilto 6 tfablist Proqfqtqwir
                                              Jan A. Hrliks. Esq.                     that we can not physically be there but do hope
                                              criviromqmmf                             that the view points and suggestions contained
                                              I?Iomas J. Huritt                       within this letter may be shared by your Agency
                                              conimuor                                as
                                              DL Ramon Lqwkw                                  well as all those in attendance.
                                              Field Sonricos
                                              0& MAMIA L $160hons                     We     also understand that there are three proposed
                                              Lilibqmicry Animals
                                              David X. WITIS                          methods on your agenda, which are;

                                              phylliz "Iota
                                              Companion Animists                      1.     By killing the animals
                                              Murcaugo aluan Mo4den, Esq.             2.     To trap and transfer
                                              swqw C'xinsol                            3.     Compensation to the effected property owners

                                              DqMF.CTIORS
                                              H. 1. (Sonny) Bloch
                                              Women Burka. EsQ.
                                              Anita Schownskof Coups. q&Q.
                                              Irono Event                             HSUS POSITION
                                              Carroll illorgharn-rnrift
                                              Regime Bauor FatikenqWig
                                              Harold N. Garoinor                      1.     Killing the Animals
                                              Alice A. Garay                                 The Humane Society of the United States (HSqUSq)
                                              Dr. Jana Oqooqoqlqill
                                              LOS" A. Inglis                                 representing almost 5,000 members and
                                              John Kay                                       constituents within the state qo8qf Delaware and
                                              Ilk Amy Frqeqsmqaqn Lee
                                              qJ8quk W. qLyqdqmqtqm                                  most of all on behalf of the animals,
                                              Vqiqrqgqirqlqiqs qJyqnqrm                                intensely opposes the killing qo4qf the beaver&.
                                              qC8qU Ramsey. Esq.
                                              Mqaqrqgyqn q0q. q5q6q,q0q0q1                               Even where the killing o2qf beavers Is legal# it
                                              Aqcqbqen Sqoqmqex                                    will not prevent the problem from reoccurring.
                                              John q4. Taft
                                              q1qsqtqry qC, qTq. qhqomqaqsqoqm                            I6qf the habitat remains the same,                                               new animals
                                              qlqo0qwqsw6qoqoqr                                       will move in acme time in the future.
                                              2qf2qtqbqeqn F. Wallow, Esq,
                                              or. qDqaqvqv q0q. qWq$qoqDqerqs
                                              Marilyn 6qWhqeqirn                                                        continued
                                              K.  q@ qWqiq;qvqrqn qWqiqsqorqrq(qM







                                                                                                              86
 














                        1 -rHU 1 4    416 IISUS-M A RO                            F21 0 S













                                 page 2

                                 2. Trap and Transfer
                                    Live trapping would seem an acceptable
                                    alternative to killing, however, splitting Of
                                    the family groups usually ends in the death of
                                    moat of the beaver faxilye Where legal,
                                    beavers can be live trapped but because of
                                    their strength and large teeth special,
                                    expensive cages must be used and it requires a
                                    knowledgeable person to set them. if the trap
                                    is set incorrectly the animal could be drowned
                                    or killed by the closing mechanisa. This
                                    alternative, like killing will not provide
                                    long term relief if the habitat remains the
                                    same.


                                 3. Compensation
                                    This is not an animal protection issue,
                                    however we realize that if damages are
                                    compensated for by the State, the immediate
                                    pressure to eliminate the animals will be
                                    relieved, for now, and may alleviate the
                                    need to destroy or transfer the animals.


                                 Our recommended solution lies in removing from
                                 the existing habitat those things that attract
                                 and maintain the beavers in the concerned area.

                                 We have attached to this letter a copy of XSUS
                                 Shelter Sense, April 1987 article, entitled,
                                 "Busy Beavers Can Be Persuaded to Leave Home".
                                 Within this article are numerous suggested
                                 solutions to alter the environment to cause the
                                 beavers to move elsewhere, naturally.

                                 The Humane Society of the United States would
                                 strongly urge that your agency consider this
                                 alternative to killing and we would be happy to
                                 have you speak directly to our Wildlife Director
                                 and expert, Dr. John Grandy, who can be reached
                                 at our Washington DC Headquarters, 202w452-1100.
                                 Of course this office which represents Delaware
                                 will continue to offer any assistance possible to
                                 reach an amiable solution.


                                              continued





                                                87






























        AUG-15-97: THU 14:46 HSUS-MARO














                      page

                      Thank you for the opportunity to share our views
                      and ideas with your Agency and on behalf of the
                      animals, I remain
                      Sincerly,
                     4qZc6q*q@Reder
                      Field Investigator


                      cc: Dr. John Grandy

                         Washington News Journal

                         Jill Church, Delaware Action qfor Animals
























                                88
 

















                                                      AOG-15-91 THU 14:47 HSUS-MARO                                       q0!5

                    Volume q10
                    Number 3
                  "April/MayqI98q7






                    2qMINSIDE:
                    aRidding qOssivers Humanely                                              For the people
                    0 qDog Attacks. Owner In
                    Prison                                                                 who care about
                    0 Pot Food Discounts                                                   community
                                                                                           animal control

                                                                                         TM











                                                                                                7,
                                                                                          2q3

                                                                                                  0












                                                                AAA.-



                  DogBqiqt4qesq:                    our community may be the next to be involved qin &   severe dog
                                           6qYbitqe incident. In the past 12 months, 14 people have been
                  Ho16qv0qv64qProt52qWed              killed nationwide an a result of dog attacks. Now is the time to
                  Is Your                  review your communityq's animal ordinance so that your organization;
                  Community?               will be Prepared before facing such a tragedy.
                  by Dabble Reed           Some co4q=unities have passed unenforceable vicious dog
                                           ordinances. Many laws are not based on knowledge about animal
                                           behavior, animal welfare, and animal bites. Since today's
                                           citizens are move apprehensive about their safety and the security
                                           of their belongings, it is common for a person to own a   guard dog
                                           in addition to or 8qin place of q& gun. But many laws place the
                                           burden of Punishment on an offending animal, when# in fact, it is
                                           an irresponsible owner who usually is the direct or indirect cause
                                           of a dog's severe bite.
                                                                                      Continued on next pa0qVqe

                                                         89
 













          AUG-IM-91 THU 1-4:47 H668-MARO


















             Busy Beavers            rhe second article In a series about humane solutions to wildlife
             Can Be                  problems that began with the march 1987 issue.
             Persuaded To
             Leave Homel                 eavers' legendary capacity for hard work has endeared them to
                                     Bsomt people, but their industrious activity can cause bad will.
                                     when they move into urban or suburban neighborhoods. Fortunately.
                                     many people prefer to solve such conflicts without killing them.
                                     It is possible to evict beavers or to find ways to live peacefull3i
                                     with them without causing them harm. Further, the humane approact-
                                     to beaver control is usually the most practical.

                                     Beavers will live wherever there is sufficient food and water and
                                     quickly will make themselves at home in ponds, lakes, and
                                     streams. In streams# they busy themselves with building a dam to
                                     create a more desirable environment, which results In trapped
                                     vater that may flood crop lands, pastures# or lawns. Beavers cut
                                     down ornamental trees for food or dam construction materials.
                                     They also may eat twigs and bark, leaving the damaged trees to
                                     die. Some landowners may.not enjoy watching their carefully
                                     landscaped yards being redesigned by beavers.

                                     No repellents# toxicants, or fumigants are registered for use in
                                     controlling beavers. A landowner with a beaver problem may resort
                                     to shooting or trapping the offending beave .rs because he or she
                                     knows of no other practical solution. This simplistic approach
                                     includes several drawbacks: The taking of beavers Is strictly
                                     regulated in most statesi may only be done legally at certain
                                     times,-using specified techniquesp and usually requires a
                                     permit. Even where killing beavers is legal., it will not prevent
                                     other beavers from moving in and restarting the problem. Such
                                     drastic measures fail to acknowledge the aesthetic value of
                                     beavers as fascinating and complex animals, nor do they recognize
                                     beavers' important role in our cultural and natural heritage.
                                                                               Continued on next page

                                                         90












  UG-In-91 7HU            14:4@ HSU'S-MARO                                         P.07
                          There ace effectivee nonlethal techniques ror controllina nuisanc4
                          beavers, and these can be best understood by first understanding
                          beaver biology.

                          The beaver (Castor canadensis) Is the largest North American
                          rodent. it is monogamous and remains faithful to its mate.
                          Females produce one litter per year, usually between March and
                          June. A typical litter contains three or four kits. Young
                          beavers art able to reproduce by the age of 18 months. A beaver
                          colony commonly contains eight to 13 animals, Including an adult
                          pairt kits from the previous spring, and yearlings. Two-yeac-old
                          beavers leave in search of unoccupied territories to colonize.
                          Dispersing beavers may travel many miles in search of now homes.
                          The two most important requirements for good beaver habitat are
                          plentiful food and deep water. The largest portion of their diet
                          includes tree bark and twigs, and beavers prefer trees ouch an
                          &open# cottenwoode poplar, willow, and members of the bitch
                          family. They also require deep water in order to build their'
                          lodges with underwater entrances and to provide a refuge from
                          disturbances. This is why they build dams in shallow streama. Ir
                          deeper bodies of water, they may forego the hard work of building
                          a dam.


                          once beavers populate a watershed, stream system# or other wetland:
                          areat they periodically will re-invade land from which they have
                          been eliminated by trapping or shooting. Recolonization is
                          likely, as long as the site continues to offer a hospitable
                          environment. A landowner who relies on firearms or traps should
                          anticipate an influx of beavers to his or her property.

                          Armed with the knowledge of what attracts beavers, a landowner Mal,
                          make the area less attractive to them by *thinking like a
                          beaver.a Ask "Why would beavers want to live here?" Then devise
                          ways to make food and/or deep water unavailable to them. Of
                          course, it would be unreasonable to cut down all trees and to
                          drain wetlands, but there are other practical, relatively simple
                          solutions.

                          One solution is to exclude animals from the land. This approach
                          is practical only for small areas such as pondso around which a
                          barrier can be created wi th a metal fence.

                          Where a conventional fence in not practical or desirable, It may
                          be possible to repel beavers with an electrified suspension fence,
                          which depends upon a high-voltage, low-amperage energy source suc@
                          as an automobile battery. A single wire, suspended approximatel%
                          I foot off the ground, Is connected to a power unit that transmd.
                          a pulsating electric charge. When a beaver touches the wire# it
                          receives a mild shock but Is otherwise unharmed. After several
                          encounters with this type of fence, a beaver will be conditioned
                          to avoid that location. The equipment needed to construct an
                          electrified fence can be purchased from a farm supply store.
                          Electrified fences are less expensive to build than conventional
                          fences, but they require more maintenance. Some systems can fail
                          In extremely dry conditions because an animal's feet may not be
                          sufficiently grounded. Another problem is that broken insulators
                          or wet, heavy weeds and grass can short the electric current,
                                                                   Continued on ncxt page

                                                       91













                 AUG-15-91 THU 14:49 HSUS-MARO                                                                                                      qR.q0q8



                                                                  VQ'M9rA6 ILOLVA41 W60OW 1M$6X&D                                 Togo* 6 To 9  DI. 4MLSq" 04 WATAS
                                                                  jjdV* MAIN L06VILT. W^VZ  I P64W$                                600e,69 4061   16, q" 16, LONG
                                                                  jMrogq:@TT9&4 or filobw WHMH                                           M&AT145% WrM q"M6 TM
                                                                  "AV   I  "Omar 66061A
                                                                                                                         OMNI
                                                                                                      C06VIRT


                                                                                          ..........                                              ..... ..
                                                                  MOO
                                                                                                                                                     *Am


                                                                                                                                       &.*To



                                                              q5EAVqFqZ FqEq0q6F WATqTqIL LEVEL- qCqONTqROLoqt                   q8qEAVqEK    PZQ              4qAqEVqEqL qCqONTqOL,q@q1
                                                              00 SGA"                                                we 640"1



                                                              cawaar caosraucyto It Vo. 6&voff x1riftwolwo
                                                              MESH ftM96 C16'. 0, rtago) 6&VggSD Sviq" I& d6qmv.
                                                              P a- Y066oao wato Paso, ArrAtwda wrto - i moo tw6s.    %*Do rK&46W (61 To $I? WWI) COM47'evctle
                                                              ï¿½[email protected] ASSSM*LSD PAW96 &VTO A 49,j%,,w9S AM9            3 r6hweLs o4s,o ",arwit werp, M&rA.6 AN66916.
                                                              Pat.rbw "qm- - 3 "Do I.N41S. C&OSR IN66T                %4"404          CAVSA&* WrrM 1*60&q" I'qMO-Will
                                                              Irmo IdITM 6.06. W148 "Now. Twafto goarld"S
                                                              (299 AqU CONS109960 A Moi. 69NIAT'll.


                                                                                 qU





                                                                                                                                                 qjFJq6' V1
                                                                        OPqOOF WATEIE Lq9VqEL qCqOqNTqRqOqL'6qj"                              ROOF WATER LEVEL       qCqONTqZOL



                                                             preventing it from flowing through                      the fence, thereby eliminating
                                                             its effectiveness.

                                                             Physical barriers can be used to shield ornamental trees. Each
                                                             tree can be wrapped in a band of hardware cloth or wire mesh that
                                                             extends approximately 3-1/2 feet above the ground. Recommended
                                                             mesh si:es vary from one-quartet inch to 1 inch. If the trees arc
                                                             in an area that is occasionally flooded, the cloth should extend
                                                             at least 2 feet above the high-water mark.

                                                             A diluted solution of creosote, available at most local garden
                                                             centers, has been found to reduce damage by gnawing beavers when
                                                             sprayed or painted on tree trunks. A landowner also can use a
                                                             homemade concoction to make trees or crops distasteful to
                                                             beavers. A favorite formula consists of 1 tablespoon of hot
                                                             popper sauce in a gallon of water which contains an additive that
                                                             promotes retention (such as Wiltq-Pruf or vapor-Gard). The
                                                             disadvantage of such a preparation is that it must periodically be
                                                             reapplied.

                                                             when planting trees near waterways frequented by beavers, avoid
                                                             their preferred food trees, listed above.

                                                             It Is futile to destroy a beaver dam. Beavers will begin
                                                             rebuilding one as soon as the landowner departs. it Is possible,
 MEN                                                         however, to modify a beaver dam by placing a specially constructed
                                                             pipe through it so that the animals are unable to qateqm the flow of
                                                                                                                               Continued on next page


  -                                                                                        92


   .4
 
















   AUG-IM-91 7HU 14:M0 HSUS-MARO                                                             P.09
                                water. This device regulates the water level and prevents beaver
                                f ram expanding the size of a pond or impeding the flow Of -A
                                stream.

                                The pipe must stick out beyond the actual dam construction,
                                particularly on tho upstream side of the pond. A 10-foot to 40-
                                foot pipe will be required for most dams. A pipe that Is 8 inche
                                to 12 inches in diameter usually is adequate. Pipe aiia depends
                                on the Average volume of water flowing in the stream. Several
                                smaller diameter pipes may be substituted for one larger pipe.
                                Either galvanizedr plastice or aluminum irrigation pipe can be
                                used;   A pipe also can be built with concrete reinforcing mesh
                                panels  and welded wits mesh, or it can be fashioned from sheets c
                                metal#  with the bottom side made of wire mesh. The pipe should b
                                placed  at the same depth as the water level desired by the
                                landowner. Steel posts can be used to secure the pipe In
                                position.

                                The pipe should prevent beavers from obstructing the flow of wate:
                                or, at leastp should limit flooding to a tolerable depth. In man:
                                cases, beavers will find the shallow site unsuitable and will loo,
                                for a more favorable spot for their colony.
                                To prevent beavers from plugging the upstream opening in the pipe,
                                it should be fitted with a protective cover known as a "beaver
                                baffler.* One design for a baffler is a cone-shaped wire guard.
                                The base of the cone is anchored flat against the pipe. If
                                properly fittedr* this system looks like an arrow* Beavers will
                                attempt to dam the guard using twigs. They even may scoop mud
                                from the bottom of the pond and push It against the guard. The
                                shape of the guard should* prevent beavers from placing materials
                                flush against the mouth of the pipe. Although the beavers may be
                                partially successful in their efforts to block the pipe, enough
                                water usually will continue to flow to maintain the desired water
                                level. The animals soon will tire of their losing battle to bloc.
                                the flow of water and will move.

                                A secon4 type of' baffler also is designed for use on the mouth of
                                the pipe. it consists of an elbow bent downward at a 90-degree
                                angle and approximately one foot under the water surface. Beaver:i
                                cannot block the vertical intake opening of the elbow.

                                in Canada, biologists have improved on this concept. Before
                                placing the pipe through the beaver dam, they drill I-Lnch holesr
                                approximately 10 inches apart, along its entire length.         some
                                biologists contend that it in necessary only to drill along the
                                first 10 feet of pipe an the upstream side of the dam. The water
                                flowing through the holes seems to confuse beavem which cannot
                                determine how or where to stop the flow of water. They often try
                                to plug the holes and ignore the mouth of the pipe. Once a pipe'.
                                has-been properly installed, a periodic inspection will ensure
                                that the water is flowincl properly.

                                Habitat alteration is a technique of beaver control that often Is
                                overlooked. On many streams and ponds, beavers can be encouraged
                                to relocate simply by removing food trees -- particularly young
                                willow and cottonwood trees -- and dam construction materials from
                                the water's edge. Beavers are limited in their ability to haul
                                                                              Continued on next page


                                                            93














                                                   AUG-15-91 THU 14:50 HSUS-MARO


                                                           building materials across land. In the absence of a ready supply
                                                           of food or construction materials, they are unlikely to colonize a
                                                           stream or pond.
                                                           Some landowners insist on removing beavers. In such
                                                           circumstances, beavers can be captured &live and unharmed in cage
                                                           traps (check first with state wildlife officials for legal
                                                           restrictions). Because a beaver's powerful muscles and sharp
                                                           teeth can destroy a standard cage trapt several manufacturers have
                                                           designed sqpecqial.beaver traps that resemble a giant purse with
                                                           chain sides. This type of trap is expensive, costing
                                                           approximately $1q50, and it takes skill to properly and safely
                                                           set. if the trap is placed in too deep water, the animal may
                                                           drown, Anqd if tqhe trap is positioned incorrectly, the trap laws
                                                           may kill the animal. Contact a district game warden or county
                                                           extension agent for professional help in using cage traps to catch
                                                           beavers.

                                          V
                                                           "in re-lanqdscaqping an area damaged by beavers# careful selection
                                                           of ornamental trees can prevent a recurrence of the problem.
                                                           Evergreens such as pine# first and spruce generally are safe from
                                                           assault. Because these trees are fast growing, they quickly
                                                           restore landscape that has been damaged by beaver activity.
                                                           The control of any wildlife species Is 'as much an art                             as a
                                                           science. Success in controlling beavers ultimately is related to
                                                           the skills and inventiveness of individuals. Tolerance for this
                                                           Industrious, often beneficial animal can make life easier for all
                                                           concerned. Nevertheless, if an occasional beaver problem must be
                                                           solved, the techniques outlined here offer the best hope for a
                                                           practical, permanent, and humane solution. q0






                                                                 ter Art Evans graduated from The Humane Society of the United
                      qANqIMALCONq1q1MqI.                       6qNSt&qte3' Animal Control Academy in 19q9q1, he was promoted to
                      8qVAqI2qDEMY                              director of Greene County Animal Control. Since thenp Evans has
                      NEWS                                 overseen a number of Improvements in the facility's operations.
                      This column Is about you             Previously chief of the animal-control department# located at 641
                                                           qDayton-xenqiqa Road* Xenia# OR 4qS3q65, Evans has used the skills and
                      -(he Acadomqy qorsduoqtel It            knowledge he gained At the Academy to Increase the income of his
                      you've reseqlved a promotion,         self-supporting agency to q0220,000 a year from q$q80#q00q0# increase
                      helped to AMID" local at
                      state animal 2qlqo8qgIs0qlqa0ql8qlqonq,            the thqreqe-porsqon staff to eight full-time employees, and establish
                      Improved your community's            now programs such as cruelty Investigation# cat control# pet
                      qaqn8qima04qkqoqn4qi8qm8ql program, or              therapy, obedience training, and fund raising. 8qHis organization
                      had an 8qIqn4qtqeqiqvqoqt8qiqn2qg work.             is the first in the state with authority to impound nuisance or
                      related qexpe8qdqeqnqcqe, writs to          injured cats. The agency runs two shelters in Greene Cqount6qyt one
                      Shqe4qnqeqr Sqoqnsqo, The MSUS,              in Fairborn, one iqn Xenia. It also picks up and redeems stray
                      12qMqI8qD8q0 8qL Stq. N.W, Washingq.             dogs in Clinton County.
                      4qt0q^ 2qDC 2q28q1q12q14q?q,lqnc:4q1qudqs a
                      telephone number, please.            "The key word Is 'professional,'" said Evans. 'At the Academy, I
                                                           became aware of the fact that I am not alone in the problems I
                                                           face, that solutions are available. I gained new pride and a
                                                           sense of organization through my training at the Academy that
                                                           allows me to overcome the negatives in my work and accent the
                                                           positive." 0q0


                                                                                       94
 
















                            August 26, 1991


                            MS. Terri Fabean
                            Division of Fish and Wildlife
                            Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
                            Post Office Box 1401
                            Dover, Delaware 19903

                            Dear Ms. Fabean:

                                 A friend aware of my long-standing interest in beavers sent me a copy of the
                            August 15th Delaware State News article on your statewide beaver management plan.
                            I'm writing to alert you to the existence of an organization devoted to protecting
                            beavers and finding creative ways for these wonderful animals to live in harmony with
                            man. The Beaver Defenders, based at the Unexpected Wildlife Refuge in Newfield,
                            New Jersey, can provide you with extensive information about beavers and their
                            contribution to the environment and suggestions for ways to resolve conflicts between
                            beavers and man. You can join for $10, which entitles you to receive a quarterly
                            newsletter filled with beaver facts, lore and letters from people who live near
                            lodges/dams. Contact:

                                                         Hope Sawyer Buyukrnihci
                                                          The Beaver Defenders
                                                     Unexpected Wildlife Refuge, Inc.
                                                            Post Office Box 765
                                                       Newfield, New Jersey 08344
                                                              (609) 697-3541

                                 Recent editions of the newsletter mentioned the following resources you might
                            find useful:

                                     Experiments reveal that the chemical repellent Ro-pel will sometimes
                                     discourage beavers from eating trees. For more information, contact:
                                                                B1. Hilliker
                                                               Young Street
                                                        East Hampton, C`I' 06424

                                     A booklet entitled "11ving with Beavers" by Dr. Tom Eveland is available
                                     from the Alliance for Animals' Beaver Project. Contact:
                                                  Alliance for Animals - Beaver Project
                                                           Ill King Street - #26
                                                        Madison, Wisconsin 53703








                                                                    95















                                       A device known as a Beaver Baffle prevents them from damming up
                                       culverts. Ibis inexpensive gadget resembles a cyUndrical chicken wire cap
                                       which fits over the end of the pipe. Contact the Beaver Defenders for more
                                       information.


                                  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reconsider using underwater traps as an element
                             of your Beaver Management Plan. Drowning is a slow and horrible death for any
                             animal, especially one with the capacity to hold its breath underwater for half an hour
                             or more. Beavers can and do use their strong teeth to gnaw off their paws. Death
                             may follow from loss of blood, starvation, etc. Traps are cruel and inhumane. Ile
                             Beaver Defenders can tell you more, and may be able to put you in touch with
                             Delaware residents (and/or people from other states) who would welcome a beaver
                             colony on their land (people write to them asking to be put in touch with
                             organizations which relocate beavers).

                                  Although the Beaver Defenders does not advocate moving beavers to zoos, I
                             have found that they make wonderful exhibits. A successful beaver exhibit captivates
                             both children and adults, and leads to greater appreciation of their contribution to
                             the environment. The Minneapolis-St.Paul Zoo has an excellent beaver facility. If
                             you cannot find homes for all of the beavers you relocate, you might wish to send
                             them to area zoos - it's better than death! Since beavers learn many of their skills
                             from their parents, zoos are a reasonable alternative for injured animals and youths
                             eparated from their colonies who are less able to cope in the wild. You should also
                             contact such groups as The Nature Conservancy to find homes for "problem" beavers.
                             s


                                  As I'm sure you know, beavers are remarkable, trusting, intelUgent animals who
                             maintain strong family structures. Since they remain at their lodges until they are two
                             years old, learning skills and contributing to lodge and dam maintenance, food
                             gathering, and caring for younger animals, the impact of killing any single beaver,
                             especially a parent, has terrible ramifications for the entire colony. Could you please
                             send me a copy of your Beaver Management Plan? Thank you very much.





                                               Elaine Van S. Carmichael
                                               1411 Prince Street
                                               Alexandria, Virginia 22314

                                               Home: (703) 549-3912
                                               Work: (703) 893-1560

                             cc:       Hope Sawyer BuyukmihcL The Beaver Defenders





                                                                     96















                                                              THE BaVER DEFENDERS     SPRING 1991 - P. 7


                                                  THE BEAVER DEFENDERS
                                                 Membership Application


                       NAME


                       ADDRESS





                       Membership-subscription $10.00 per year. ?lease make checks payable to
                       Unexpected Wildlife Refuge. Contributions tax deductible. Amounts in
                       excess of actual membership will be considered a donation unless other-
                       wise specified.


                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AVAILABLE FROM THE BEAVER DEFENDERS
                              (Proceeds to the Refuge. Postage extra. Please estimate.)

                       BEST OF THE BEAVER DEFENDERS. Selected articles, essays and poems,
                       illustrated with sketches, from the first 15 years of The Beaver
                       Defe=ders. 175 Pages- S10-00-

                       BEAVERSPRITE. By Dorothy Richards with HSB. 1977. Heart of the lakes
                       Publishing Co., Interlaken, KY. Story of Beaversprite, a sanctuary for
                       beavers and other wildlife. Recounts iichards' more than 40 years of
                       close association with beavers. $12.00.

                       IN BEAVER WORLD. By Enos A. Mills. First published in 1913. Republished
                       in 1989 by University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE. A beaver classic.
                       Paperback, $10.00.

                       LILY POND, FOUR YEARS WITH A FAMILY OF BEAVERS. By Hope Ryden. William
                       Morrow & Co., 'TY. 1989. Close obervations end experiences with beavers
                       in a state park. 217-95.

                       PIAY, THE TRAPPER. 100.

                       WHAT WAVERS DO FOR OUR WATiMWAYS. 100.

                       YOU AND THE BEAVER and GOLDEN RULES OF CONSERVATION. Two leaflets Q 100 ea.

                       TIE STORY OF CHOPPER.  20o.

                       IN @040RIAM (Chopper).  100.

                       TWO BEAVER SONGS. 500  ea.

                       TRAPPED BEAVER POSTER.  500.

                       SAVE THE ANLIALSs 101 EASY THINCS YOU CAN DO. By Ingrid Newkirk. Warner
                       Books, KY. 1990. Paperback, $6.00 Postpaid.




                                   "BEAVERS TURN WILDERNESS . . . INTO HAPPINESS."

                                                        97













                                                                                                                                                                                  ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAUS:
                                                                                            COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                                                   ADMINISTRATION    .....             787-5670
                                           A%8q" L                                                                                                                              AUTOMOTIVE AND
                                                                                                                                                                              PROCUREMENT DIVISION             787-6594
                                                                                                                                                                              ICENSE DIVISION                  707-2004
                                                                                              ONN'S 6qL AN                                                                      L
                                                                                           E                      8qy                                                           PERSONNEL DIVISION               707-7836
                                                                                                                                                                           WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ...             787-5529
                                                                                                                                                                           INFORMATION & EDUCATION             7874286
                                                                                                E'      COMMISS2qF                                                           LAWENFORCEMENT                      787-5740
                                                                                                                                                                           LAND MANAGEMENT      .......        787-6818
                                                                                                                                                                              REAL ESTATE D VISION ..          707-65U
                                                                                                    2qWI ELMERMN AVENUE                                                     MANAGEMENT IN111ORMATION
                                                                                                  HARRISBURG. PA 17110-9797                                                SYSTEMS    .................        n74076


                                              DATE:                           August 29, 1991



                                            .SUBJECT:                         Delaware Beaver Management Plan



                                              TO:                             William Meredith
                                                                              Terri Fabean


                                              FROM:                           Thomas S. Hardisky, Chief
                                                                              Wildlife Data Base Division
                                                                              Bureau of Land Management





                                                             Enclosed are my comments on your draf t Beaver Management
                                              Plan as well as some material which you may find useful.                                                                                               This
                                              document is one of the most thorough and well-prepared plans I
                                              have seen on beavers. You've done an excellent job.

                                                            Please contact me if I can assist you further q(717-787-
                                              1570).
                                                                       _-

















































































                                                                                                            An Equal Opportunity Employer







                                                                                                                      98
 











                                                                  Comments on Beaver Management Plan
                                                                                 Tom Hardisky
                                                                                29 August 1991


                                Ref: p. 24

                                         Relocated beavers will wander and attempt to return to their original colony. Expect caensiye
                                movements. V611th the exception of pregnant females, I believe that few muLsplanted beavers will remain in the
                                general vicinity of the release sde. Beavers are highly social and if scen mounds possessing unfamilin odors
                                exist at the release site, transplanted beavers will leave the area regardless of the sex or age of the relocated
                                beavers. Mortality would also be high during these random movcmentL

                                        Relocation of pregnant females is an excellent way to establish beaver colonies in new area,
                                Transplanted females in their latter term of pregnancy generally will not move e=endveJy and will seek shelter
                                in preparation for birthing. Parturition dates vary but adult females captured from February-April would be
                                good candidates for relocation.

                                        Personally, I would relocate a nuisance beaver as a last resort. Unless a beaver colony is highly
                                desirable in an area presently void of beavers, the time, expense, and limited succes of beaver relocation
                                outweighs its usefulness and practicality. Only where public attention is drawn to a specific site would I attempt
                                to relocate a beaver. Dispatch and disposal (burying) of the nuisance beaver on-site should be a viable (if not
                                preferred) alternative. The decision to relocate or dispatch the beaver should be flexible. Occasionally,
                                circumstances warrant immediate dispatch (for safety reasons).

                                        Accurate sex and age information on removed beavers is extremely importanL Sexing beavers externally
                                can only be accomplished by determining the presence or absence of the bacuIum. This will require
                                immobilization of the beaver or some type of "squeeze" cage.

                                        The stress associated with caprure@ immobilization, and transport will bigger nwvous reactions such as
                                gnawing on the metal cage. C2Lipped and broken teeth are common. occasional mortality should be cV=e&

                                                                                       000


                                Ref. p. 25

                                        Ile leg snares, mentioned under Methods of Uve Trapping, would result in very limited trapping
                                         These spring-activated snares are generally used for terrestrial animal capture and would be difficult
                                and time-consuming to set in aquatic habitats.

                                        The use of cable snares for live capture of beavers should be considered. Trappers in the eastern U.S.
                                are unfamiliar with -na      and lack confidence in their performance. However, cable snares have many
                                advantages over other live-capture methods.



















                                                                                    99












                                                             Advantages of Using Snares:

                                                             - C;ost, SLOO each
                                                             . Lightweight
                                                             - Cannot injure trapper or unsuspecting traveler
                                                             - Do not kill beavers
                                                             - Risk of non-target catch is low
                                                             - Non-target catches may be released
                                                             - Low susceptibility to trap theft
                                                             . LOW susceptibility to rusting

                                                             Disadvantages of Snares:

                                                             - Heavy tie-down is required
                                                             - Cannot be reused after capture
                                                             - First-time users usually require instruction


                                           Snares are practical, time-saving devices, especiaNy in remote areas. Since there is virtually no limit on
                                  the number of snares which may be set, beaver problem areas may be heavily trapped resulting in faster, more
                                  efficient beaver control.

                                           As you probably kitow, rm sold on snares. I used snares in MississippL Florida, and Tennessee for
                                  bobcats, black bears, and beavers and prefer them over steel traps and live traps. My trapping efficiency using
                                  Ma     was 11% (77 captmrc&f7O7 trapnights). Trapping success will vary by season with the best trapping period
                                  falling between November and May. I did not routinely use No. 4 steel traps (underspring or longspring) due
                                  to the time involved in preparing a drowning set. I have also had little success using this type of trap. If you
                                  are interested in a snaring demonstration for your trappers/employees, let me know.



                                  Ref. p. 26

                                           Since ear tags are susceptible to loss especially on beavers, you may wish to mark beavers with tail tags.
                                  Cattle ear tags work well for this purpose. The tail is not very vascular and consists of thick cartilage under the
                                  scaly skin surface.

                                                                                          000

                                           Unless telemetry is used, monitoring transplanted beavers will be extremely difficult. Telemetry is very
                                  costly and would be difficult to justify in this situation. If telemetry is used, I would recommend a surgically-
                                  implanted transmitter rather than a collar-mounted transmitter. An on-site inspection, as you have suggested,
                                  is probably sufficieuL However, an extensive search may be needed to find evidence of beaver activity.



                                  Refi p. 28

                                           You may wish to implement a "hot spoe program for regulated beaver harvest. Landowners
                                  experiencing beaver damage would enroll in the program and allow public beaver trapping on their land only.
                                  Names and a0dresses of all cooperating landowners would be available to any interested trapper. The
                                  landowner would be responsible for regulating the number of trappers permitted on his land. This "hot spoe

                                                                                           2












                                                                                      100











                                 program would focus trapper effort on specific beaver problem areas. Disadvantages of this program include
                                 law enforcement diffictilties and the lack of a           to neighboring landowners who do not permit beaver
                                 trapping-



                                 Ref- p. 29

                                           The inta    portion of water control devices in beaver dams must be &ep@@ submerged to prevent
                                 blockage by beavers. One very important behavior universally exhibited by beavers is their dam-building
                                 response to the sound of running water. This behavior is thought to be innate (instinctive). Beavers will attempt
                                 to plug water leakage on the upstream side of a dam, and even small whirlpools and swirls on the surface of the
                                 water will stimulate the dam-building response. Water control structures or pipes must be positioned such that
                                 the water ints1k is well below the water surface and does not create notice-able water currents. Multiple water
                                 control devices should be installed to drain large water courses rather than installing I large drain. Beavers
                                 generally will not attempt to block the water flowing out of the pipe on the downstream side of the dam. The
                                 pipe need not extend several feet past the dam (see enclosed illustration).



                                           Complete elimination of a beaver colony through trapping is unlikely. The best way to alleviate a severe
                                 beaver problem is to heavily trap the area until you have no trapping success for several days. At this point,
                                 begin to slowly lower the water level by breaking part of the dam each day. If beavers still exist in the area, they
                                 will attempt to repair the dam and trapping should continue. If the dam is not repaireA continue to drain the
                                 beaver pond to the desired water level and install a drainage device to maintain this level if beavers return.
                                 Unrepaired dam breaks and lack of trapping success usually mean that the remidnin members of the beaver
                                 colony have temporarily moved out of the area or that you have temporarily trapped out all the beavers in the
                                 area.

                                           Beaver ponds consisting of new dams (< 1 yr. old) and bank dons (no lodges) are characteristic of a
                                 2-year-old pair of beavers who dispersed to a new area. Trapping can effectively eliminate this pair and the
                                 associated beaver problem. Colonies with older dams and lodges generally support more beavers in different
                                 age classes. Trapping in these areas controls population growth, but unless the dams are destroyed, complete
                                 elimination through trapping is unlikely. Without sufficient water depth, beavers will leave the area and seek
                                 more suitable habitat.





































                                                                                     101






                                 NTY ?-, ,.DELAWARE TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION
                                        Cn
                                                           New Castle County Chapter

                                    Wo,






                                    August 29, 1991







                                    Dear Ms. Terri Fabeant

                                    Delaware Trapper Association respectfully request a limited
                                    trapping season be implemented on beaver.

                                    The season and method of catch could be closely regulated by
                                    DNREC A system of tagging captured beavers similar to otter
                                    would be useful in monitoring.

                                    When considering beaver trapping in Delawarer the problem of
                                    restrictive use of foothold traps must be addressedl The
                                    leasing of state owned live traps may be a viable solution.
                                    The costs of such traps makes them prohibitive.

                                    We look forward to working with the Division on this most
                                    important project. The beaver, landowners, Department of
                                    Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the Delaware
                                    Trappers Associatione will most certainly benefit from this
                                    season.

                                                         Respectfully,






                                    BH/psb














                                                 "Committed to Conservation and Education"


















                                                          102



  -10











                           Ms. Terri Fabean                                                      August 29, 1991
                           Division of Fish and Wildlife
                           Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
                           Post Office Box 1401
                           Dover, Delaware 19903

                           Dear Ms. Fabean:

                                 When I wrote you about The Beaver Defenders a few days ago, I should have
                           mentioned another organization dedicated to ensuring that beavers and man can live
                           together in harmony. Leave it to the Beavers, a New Hampshire-based organization,
                           installs beaver baffles, pipes and dam diversions, facilitates beaver relocations, and
                           operates a sterilization program to enable beavers to remain in the wild at levels the
                           area can support. Contact:     Leave it to the Beavers
                                                            Post Office Box 40
                                                    Plainfield, New Hampshire 03781

                                 Ile booklet entitled "Living with Beavers" by Dr. Thomas E. Eveland, which
                           I recommended, is also available for one dollar from:

                                                        The Fund for Animal , Inc.
                                                             850 Sligo Avenue
                                                      Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
                                                              (301) 585-2591

                                 Incidently, the rangers at Acadia National Park on Mt. Dessert Island in Maine
                           have used pipes with great success. rve enclosed a photocopy of a page from a recent
                           Beaver Defenders newsletter which includes an excerpt from "living with Beavers"
                           and a description of Leave it to the Beavers' efforts. I hope the information I've
                           provided has been helpful and encourage you to continue identifying creative solutions
                           to beaver mann ement issues which do not involve traps and other methods of killing.
                           Thank you for your efforts to help beavers.

                                              Sincerely,



                                              Elaine Van S. Carmichael
                                              1411 Prince Street
                                              Alexandria, Virginia 22314
                                              Home: (703) 549-3912
                                              Work: (703) 893-1560

                           cc:      Hope Sawyer Bqyukmibci@ The Beaver Defenders








                                                                    103








                                                                                               THE BEAVER DEFENDERS - SUMMER 1991 - P. 5
                         When Beavers and People Collide
                         by Dr. Thomas E. Eveland,
                            The Fund For Animals
                           We do have the technology to              dams themselves to regulate ine wd-            For example, with no controls on
                         either correct or prevent most of the       ter levels. Later, they experimented          the park's beavers, the estimated to-
                         problems created when beavers and           with other techniques at road cul-            tal population that would be reached
                         people collide. It is simply a matter       verts. When all was said and done,            in the near tuture cauSed some con-
                         of understanding the beaver, the            their success was amazing. From               cerns. The final outcome, however,
                         problem, and the methods used to            1980 to 1985 they recorciec an in-            was quite different than expected.
                         change a bad situation into a good          crease of 15 percent in the park's            The park's beavers stabilized at only
                         one. When this knowledge is aP_             beaver population. Yet with the in-           60 percent of the estimated figure.
                         plied, the outcome can be very re-          stallation of the experimental devi-          Apparently this self regulation was
                         warding.                                    ce5, the number of flooding                   caused by the following:
                          To site a case in point, let's take        problems was reduced by more than              9 an apparent decrease in the fe-
                         a brief look at Gatineau Park, a large      75 percent.                                   male reproduction rate when pop-
                         take-strewn area encompassing over            In 1980, only 5 percent of the en-          ulation density increases.
                         80,000 acres in Quebec with a high          tire park was under long-term man                the increased mortality rate of the
                         population of beavers.                      agement. By 1989, over 80 percent             species during dry spells.
                          Gatineau had a serious beaver
                         problem which began in the early            of the park was being managed for                the use of lower quality sites
                         1960's. Road flooding and drain pipe        long-term problem prevention. At              which also reduces the species repro-
                                                                     one site in the early 1980's more than        cluction rates.
                         blockage were common and ac-                80 interactions were recorded for a            So, with a progressive program of
                         counted for approximately 60 per-           single year. Yet, only one year later,        beaver problem control utilizing
                         cent of all beaver related complaints.      after the installation of a drain and         modern technology and the philos-
                         And for nearly 20 years the park            without removal of the beavers, the           ophy of natural resource manage-
                         managers tried to correct these pro-        interactions had dropped to only              ment combined with the self-regulat-
                         blems through dam breaking and              four or five. Rather than call this a         ing abilities of the beaver itself, Gat-
                         trapping.                                   form of wildlife management, the              ineau Park's conflicts between
                          In 1981, the park hired a contrac-         park's employees deemed it "natu-             beaver and man have been reduced
                         tor to deal with the unsolved beaver        ral resource management", a more              to near zero.
                         complaints. Realizing that the quick-       appropriate namesake. Besides pro-            (Excerpted with permission from
                         fix method was not solving the prob-        ducing an almost total reduction in           "Living with Beavers", a highly rec-
                         lems over the long-run, they wanted         beaver-related problems, the park's           ornmended paper on ways of solving
                         to try new and innovative techni-           attempt at natural resource manage-           problems. It is available for $1.00
                         ques. First, they began experiment-         ment produced other results.                  from The Fund for Animals, Inc.,
                         ing with various pipes through the                                                        Suite LL2, 850 Sligo Ave., SHver
                                                                                                                   Spring, MD 20910)




                         NEW HAAIPSI-HRE HELPS BEAVERS:
                         by Steve Hackman
                          Leave it to the Beavers is a newly           If you have a few acres with a                A beaver pond could be a beauti-
                         formed group of people who would            brook or stream, a low marshy area            ful part of nature woven into your
                         like to see beaver living harmoni-          with lots of alder and poplar, you            landscape.
                         ously among us. Granted permission          have the perfect spot for a lovely              (Editor's notc: this new nonprofit
                         by the New Hampshire Fish and               beaver pond. We hope you will con-            group is funded solely by donations.
                         Game Department to start a beaver           sider including one in your natural           Organizers plan to use 98% of con.
                         sterilization program in New Hamp-          landscape. You will be rewarded               tributions for veterinarian fees for
                         shire, this small group is seeking          many times over. Not only do beaver           sterilizations. For more information
                         your assistance. Of prime impor-            ponds have a special mystery, but             contact Leave it to the Beavers, P.O.
                         tance right now is the need for relo-       they do much for the ecosystem, en-           Box 40, Plainfield, NH 03781.
                         cation sites for those beaver which         riching the waterways and enhanc-
                         must be removed. In other instances,        ing their surroundings to benfit birds
                         beaver could remain if beaver bafflers      and other wildlife. If you feel your
                         or beaver pipes, or dam diversions          land is capable of suporting only one
                         were used. In some circumstances,           pair of beavers, an older pair of
                         the beaver could remain, provided           beaver, already sterilized, could be
                         numbers were kept at a level suitable       relocated to your property....
                         for the site.









                                                                                    104









                   HANDWRITTEN LETTER SUBMITTED BY JAMES D. METZGER,
                   WILMINGTON, DEL.











                                                          ef




















                                                     en'







                           or










                               Jtz@e_        CL/L@L











                                         105

















                       ly


                                      cx@

                              /1V-&ZC7rl-7    7-4    @e ,o -,V,@
                                       -P"@ zz@ dt-t@@.
                       -76                       0_,,.W Z;4, -&,.W L/_7
                                       130-e4 @@-
                                         ck)Q.z4/














                                              106











                                                    0771-


                                                                                         L


                              U-1-

                                                       Lk







                                     .00,



                                                     ,A-4                            CAJ@




                                                                                      00.,





                                                        lall-@ C,'--All

                                                      oo,



                                   44    cez-lel














                                                  107









                                    Appendix 10


         Active Participants in the Development of Delaware's Beaver
         Management Plan - plan research and preparation; technical advice
         and consultation; or plan review and written comment.

         Terri Fabean, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Scientist (planis
              primary biologist, DCMP grant)

         William H. Meredith, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Program
              Manager (DCMP task leader/liaison for Beaver Plan)

         William C. Wagner II, DFW/DNREC - Division Director

         H. Lloyd Alexander, DFW/DNREC - Program Administrator, Wildlife
              Section
         William R. Whitman, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Scientist
              (Beaver Committee chairman), Wildlife Section
         E. Greg Moore, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Program Manager,
              Wildlife Section
         Kenneth M. Reynolds, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Program
              Manager, Wildlife Section
         Thomas W. Whittendale, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Scientist,
              Wildlife Section
         Randall V. Cole, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Scientist,
              Wildlife Section
         Wayne C. Lehman, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Scientist,
              Wildlife Section (regional wildlife biologist)
         William L. Jones, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Scientist,
              Wildlife Section (regional wildlife biologist)
         Robert D. Gano, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Scientist, Wildlife
              Section (regional wildlife biologist)
         Stein H. Innvaer, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Scientist,
              Wildlife Section (regional wildlife biologist)

         Major Rodney L. Harmic, DFW/DNREC - Enforcement Administrator,
              Enforcement Section
         Captain Roderick H. Burritt, DFW/DNREC - Fish and Wildlife Agent
              (staff captain), Enforcement Section
         Cpl. James C. Reynolds, DFW/DNREC   Fish and Wildlife Agent,
              Enforcement Section
         Cpl. Paynter A. Lynch, DFW/DNREC   Fish and Wildlife Agent
              (retired), Enforcement Section
         Richard L. Nutter, DFW/DNREC - Deputy Fish and Wildlife Agent,
              Enforcement Section

         Chester J. Stachecki, Jr., DFW/DNREC - Program Administrator,
              Mosquito Control Section
         Roger J. Wolfe, DFW/DNREC   Fish and Wildlife Scientist, Mosquito
              Control Section

         Edwin H. Clark II, DNREC   Secretary of the Delaware Department
              of Natural Resources and Environmental Control



                                    108









         Andrew T. Manus, DSWC/DNREC - Deputy Division Director
         Anthony P. Pratt, DSWC/DNREC - Program Administrator, Delaware
              Coastal Management Program
         Kevin C. Donnelly, DSWC/DNREC - Program Administrator,
              Conservation Districts Operations
         Richard T. Smith, DSWC/DNREC - Program Administrator, Drainage
              Section


         William Moyer, DWR/DNREC - Environmental Program Manager,
              Wetlands and Aquatic Protection Branch
         David E. Saveikis, DWR/DNREC - Environmental Scientist, Wetlands
              and Aquatic Protection Branch

         Ron Vickers, DPR/DNREC - Office of Nature Preserves/Natural Areas,
              Technical Services Section
         Leslie D. Trew, DPR/DNREC - Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory,
              Technical Services Section
         Keith Clancy, DPR/DNREC - Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory,
              Technical Services Section
         David Rothstein, DPR/DNREC - Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory,
              Technical Services Section


         David S. Small, I&E/DNREC - Chief, DNREC Information and
              Education
         Michael B. Mahaffie, I&E/DNREC - Public Information Officer

         Timothy A. Kaden, FS/DOA - Forester Supervisor, Forestry Section,
              Delaware Department of Agriculture

         Paul D. Daly, USFWS - Refuge Manager, Bombay Hook/Prime Hook
              National Wildlife Refuges

         Thomas S. Hardisky, Chief, Wildlife Data Base Division,
              Pennsylvania Game Commission

         Steve Ruggeri, Wildlife Policy Director, Friends of Animals,
              Inc., Norwalk, CT
         Bob Reder, Field Investigator, The Humane Society of the United
              States, Flanders, NJ
         Elaine Van S. Carmichael, The Beaver Defenders, Alexandria, VA

         Bud Holland, President, New Castle County Trappers Assoc.
              (Delaware Trappers Association), Townsend, DE
         James D. Metzger, Wilmington, DE

         Jessie E. Anglin, DFW/DNREC - Word Processing Technician (all
              typing of plan)







         Doc. No. 40-05/91/09/01


                                    109




                                                                           111811mall
                                                                          @- 3 6668 14103 1595