Also see our Beaver Census page (109K).

TABLE OF CONTENTS for this page:
Please WAIT for the page to fully load before using these links.

Introduction
History of Beaver at Cuyahoga Valley
The Role of Beaver in the Park
Problems Related to Beaver Activity
Policies for Beaver Management
Plan Objectives
Problem Identification
Beaver Management Actions

A. Park Planning, Development and Visitor Use Actions
B. Resource Management Actions.

1. Tree Protection
2. Use of Beaver Scent
3. Water Level Control Devices
4. Artificial Devices
5. Dismantling of Beaver Structures
6. Live Trapping and Relocation
7. Destruction of Animals
8. Introduction of Predator Species
9. Potential Management Efforts
10. Information Activities
11. Monitoring Actions
12. Research Actions

Selected References
Acknowledegments
Persons Contacted
Environmental Compliance
Appendix 1 - Beaver Monitoring Data
Appendix 2 - Control Devices - NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Appendix 3 - NPS-77 Guidelines for Nuisance Animals

INTRODUCTION
The Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area (CVNRA) encompasses over 32,000 acres along some twenty miles of the Cuyahoga River, between the cities of Cleveland and Akron, Ohio. The park preserves a pastoral valley that is predominantly undeveloped open space and woodland, with significant natural and cultural features scattered throughout.

The park is surrounded by a combination of urban, suburban, and semi-rural areas where the land use is single-family residential, light industrial, or agricultural. While the area within park boundaries is predominantly park land, either federal-owned or local metropolitan, roughly one-third remains in private use, as recreation based (golf courses, ski slopes, water park, historic village, performing arts), scattered residential, agricultural, or industrial.

Park boundaries overlap and adjoin those of numerous political subdivisions. A network of over 100 miles of roads crosses the park, ranging from secondary township roads, to more heavily traveled county roads, state routes, and three interstate highways. In addition, an historic railroad and remnants of the Ohio and Erie Canal run the entire length of the valley.

The park is divided into three management zones: natural, historic-cultural, and park development. While the natural zone is by far the largest in terms of area, there is a great deal of interaction between all three zones. Numerous cultural features and visitor use facilities are dispersed throughout the natural areas of the park, such that a map of management zones is extremely complex.

The addition of wildlife impacts to an already complex landscape points out an obvious need for park management to anticipate problems and to develop strategies to deal with them.

The recent return of beaver to this area has already produced impacts on the park and its neighbors. Those impacts have been both positive, where new wetlands have been created, and negative, in cases where critical drainage structures have been damaged. It is the objective of this plan to provide a means of assessing the impacts of beaver in the CVNRA and to begin to develop management options for dealing with beaver-related problems.

Return to the top of the page

HISTORY OF BEAVER AT CUYAHOGA VALLEY
Although very little historical record is available, it is agreed that prior to European settlement, beaver (Castor canadensis) were abundant throughout Ohio (King, Bissel, Frank, 1979). However, by 1830, after many years of heavy trapping, beaver had been eliminated from Ohio. It wasn't until more than 100 years after they were extirpated from the state, that beaver reappeared in 1936 in the eastern counties of Ohio. Since then they have been slowly migrating southward and westward, and by 1961 populations were large enough that a five-day trapping season was begun in three northeast Ohio counties. Currently, trapping is permitted in northern Ohio during the month of February with no limit.

Neighboring wildlife managers consider beaver populations to be dynamic, with largely beneficial impacts in terms of the increased wetlands they create and the greater biodiversity that occurs around the typical beaver marsh. New populations may be protected or even encouraged. Kill-trapping or live-trapping and relocation measures have been used to maintain stable populations or establish new ones. Occasionally, negative impacts from beaver activity have caused them to be treated much the same as any other nuisance animal.

Beaver probably moved into the park area within the last ten years, and an initial inventory in 1991 found over 50 active or recently abandoned lodges. This data is presented in Appendix 1. As in the rest of Ohio, it is expected that beaver will occupy every suitable watershed in the park. As with any other animal in the park, the beaver population should be expected to increase until some carrying capacity is reached, or predation and disease begin to reduce their number.

Beaver have created a number of new wetlands in the park, which attracts a great deal of interest from park visitors. It is only within the last two to three years that some negative impacts from beaver activity have occurred. Blocked culvert pipes and stream channels have flooded several roads and one segment of railroad bed. The blocking of spillways at several ponds has threatened their dams with overtopping from floodwaters, a potentially dangerous situation.

Return to the top of the page

THE ROLE OF BEAVER IN THE PARK
Relatively little research on beaver (Castor canadensis) ecology or management has been done in Ohio. Much of the information reviewed for the purpose of formulating this management plan was generated in northern states such as Michigan and Minnesota, or in Canada.

Nonetheless, the general principles of beaver ecology should be valid for northern Ohio as well.

Beaver have a substantial influence on the stability, retention capacity and processing efficiency of drainage networks throughout their range (Naiman et al., 1986). Drainage networks with beaver may be substantially different in their biochemical economics than those without beaver (Naiman 1986, 1985, 1984). The increased flooding caused by beaver produces some significant effects: modification of stream channel geomorphology and hydrology through the retention of sediment, organic matter and water; creation and maintenance of wetlands; modification of nutrient cycling and decomposition dynamics through the wetting of soils and the creation of anaerobic zones; and modification of riparian zones (Naiman, Johnston, and Kelley 1986).

What this means for the park, is that as beaver increase the amount of wetlands, a greater amount of water, sediment, and nutrients is retained on park land. These resources are then available for use by many species of plants and animals in the park.

Through their dam-building and feeding activities, beaver act as a "Keystone" species, affecting ecosystem structure and dynamics far beyond their immediate requirements for food and cover. The wetlands which beaver construct and maintain for their own protection, also provide a range of habitats suitable for many plant and animal species. Any increase in beaver contributes to the increase of habitat for those species dependent upon wetlands.

The wetlands beaver create tend to increase the diversity of habitats for many avian, mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, fish and invertebrate species (McElroy 1974, Kirby 1975, Brown and Parsons 1979, Shelton and Peterson 1983, Naiman 1984). The diverse habitats present in a typical beaver marsh provide park visitors with many fine opportunities to view wildlife. The visual signs of beaver activity such as cut trees, dams, open water, lodges, food caches and trails are easily identified and therefore provide a rich and accessible interpretive resource.

Even the preceding brief discussion of the impacts of beaver indicates the key role they can play in affecting park ecosystems. Considering the disturbed nature of much of the park environment, beaver can contribute a great deal toward the restoration of soils, water quality and many plant and animal species. Beaver should therefore be treated as significant and essential components of the park landscape. All park planning efforts should consider the impacts of development on beaver, and the impacts of beaver activities on park resources.

Return to the top of the page

PROBLEMS RELATED TO BEAVER ACTIVITY
As long as beaver activity occurs where there is no negative impact on a significant cultural or natural resource, or park development, typically few problems occur. Park management will act to protect beaver just as it would any other natural resource, according to NPS policies and regulations.

Beaver typically become a problem for park managers when their tree cutting or pond construction activities adversely affect significant resources or developments inside or outside of the park. Some examples of the kinds of adverse impacts which either have occurred or could occur are:

- flooding which erodes, weakens or makes impassible roads, trails and railroads

- flooding which damages or prevents access to structures, facilities, or agricultural lands

- flooding which damages economically valuable or protected (threatened or endangered) plants

- damming of drainage structures such as culverts, bridges, spillways, and ditches which protect facilities and developments

- redirection of normal waterflow into new areas where erosion can expose archeological sites

- tree cutting near roads, parking lots or other facilities which damages or threatens property, or creates a safety hazard

- tree cutting and feeding activities which damage or threaten economically valuable or protected plants.

The presence of private lands and public roads within and contiguous to park boundaries aggravates many of these problems.

The location and geography of CVNRA provide an environment with a large potential for beaver related problems. A concentrated and complex network including roads, trails, a railroad, and canal is imposed on a natural drainage system of the river and its numerous tributaries. Hundreds of drainage structures must be maintained to preserve cultural features, protect facilities and provide safe transportation for the public. At the same time, natural features and processes and the benefits accruing to the park from increased beaver activity, must be preserved and protected. Balancing these complicated and sometimes competing concerns will be a difficult but necessary task for park management.

Return to the top of the page

POLICIES FOR BEAVER MANAGEMENT
Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area was authorized by Congress in 1974 with the stated purpose of "preserving and protecting for public use and enjoyment, the historic, scenic, natural, and recreational values of the Cuyahoga River and the adjacent lands of the Cuyahoga Valley ...." This mandate has been consistently supported by subsequent management plans and guidelines.

The National Park Service Management Policies (NPS 1988) provide guidance for dealing with native animals. "The National Park Service will seek to perpetuate the native animal life... as part of the natural ecosystems of parks. Management emphasis will be on minimizing human impacts on natural animal population dynamics....

Animal populations or individuals will be controlled in natural, cultural, and development zones when they present a direct threat to visitor safety and health, and in cultural and development zones when necessary to protect property or landscaped areas....

Other management measures that may be used as necessary, separately or together, include live trapping for transplanting elsewhere, gathering of research specimens for NPS and cooperating scientists, public hunting on lands outside the park, habitat management, predator establishment, sterilization, and destruction by NPS personnel or their authorized agents. In controlling wildlife populations, highest priority will be given to encouraging public hunting outside the parks and live trapping within parks for transplanting elsewhere."

The CVNRA Statement for Management (NPS, 1992) includes as a major objective: Continue planning, management, research, and monitoring efforts to insure the restoration, protection and preservation of all natural resources.

Finally, the CVNRA Resources Management Plan (NPS, 1992) addresses the need for management strategies to deal with beaver related problems and for research to define the beaver's role in the park ecosystem.

Return to the top of the page

PLAN OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this plan is to provide park management with information and strategies for dealing with issues that arise from beaver activity. Our objectives are:

1)to identify sites impacted by beaver activity

2)to establish an ongoing inventory and monitoring program to provide baseline data for park management actions

3)to establish criteria for the evaluation of impacts to determine need for action, and

4)to develop a range of appropriate actions management will use to protect beaver and alleviate problems where necessary.

This plan is based on information and advice gathered from literature reviews and consultations with other resource managers (see bibliography and list of persons contacted). Since the reoccurrence of beaver in this region is still a fairly recent phenomenon, the amount of relevant research and reliable advice available to managers is very limited. Strategies and techniques are certain to change and improve as more experience and knowledge gained by researchers and managers. Park staff will continue to solicit and exchange relevant information.

Return to the top of the page

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
All instances of beaver activity which impact the park will be reported to the Resources Management staff. Reports may come from several sources including any park staff, visitors, neighbors, public officials or private individuals. All reports will be investigated by Resource Management staff or volunteers to verify location and collect basic information. New data will be added to the beaver inventory which was begun in 1991.

It is the aim of the park's beaver management program to identify new areas of beaver activity as soon as possible. New locations will be checked against sensitive resource maps and other available information to determine the potential for impacts on items such as" archeological or historic sites, threatened or endangered species, park facilities, public roads or structures and private property. Where existing or potential negative impacts are identified, Resource Management staff will contact appropriate parties who are likely to be involved in resolving any conflicts.

Those contacted may include: property owners, park cooperators, Township, City, or County officials, utility company representatives, local or regional park staff, and expert authorities.

Discussions with affected parties will determine the level of impact that is acceptable. It will be the primary goal of the park's beaver management program to coexist with beaver wherever that is possible, and to not interfere with beaver activity. Where damage to significant resources or threats to human safety are demonstrated or inevitable, the park will take action to modify or eliminate beaver activities.

All discussions and decisions that are part of beaver management activities in the park will be documented.

Return to the top of the page

BEAVER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following actions and strategies will be used to resolve various kinds of beaver damage and conflicts, within and contiguous to the park. They are written in the form of guidelines to allow for flexibility as experience improves our knowledge and abilities.

The least intrusive actions will always be attempted first, where those actions fit the circumstances. More intrusive actions, up to and including live-trapping and removal, or destruction of the animal, will be done only where no alternatives are available.

A. Park Planning, Development and Visitor Use Actions
1. Roads, Trails and Facilities
Existing problems would be resolved by relocating roads, trails and facilities whenever feasible. Problems involving private inholdings could be addressed by the park's acquisition of such properties whenever feasible.

Park planning efforts will avoid the placement of roads, trails and other facilities near occupied or potential beaver habitat, unless managers intend to interpret specific beaver pond environments.

Plans will incorporate design modifications for roads and stream crossings which can help prevent beaver problems from developing. Pipe culverts and center bridge piers would be avoided and eliminated where possible in favor of clear span bridges which are less prone to beaver problems. Where road placement near occupied or potential beaver habitat cannot be avoided, road beds will be designed to accommodate water retention without degradation of the road.

Screens, guards or other devices which discourage or resist beaver damage will be incorporated into the design of vulnerable structures and facilities. Few such devices are thought to be reliable currently, however the park will have great opportunity to try alternatives, and can play a significant role in developing effective damage control measures.

Return to the top of the page

B. Resource Management Actions
Many beaver-related problems are likely to occur in situations where management determines it is not feasible to relocate structures or facilities. Problems between beavers, park resources, and public or private property will be resolved by implementing one or more of the following actions.

The actions are arranged roughly in order of increasing intervention in beaver activities and increasing impacts on the animals themselves. Additional information on materials and techniques mentioned in this section is provided in Appendix 2.

Return to the top of the page

1. Tree Protection
Tree cutting can be prevented by the placement of hardware cloth or fencing fabric around the base of trees. Recent experience in the park has shown this technique to be effective and relatively inexpensive, with only a small visual impact.

Repellents can be applied to the base of trees to discourage gnawing by beaver. It should be noted that application must be repeated frequently, and that these materials are registered pesticides which must be handled accordingly.

Return to the top of the page

2. Use of Beaver Scent
There is some evidence in the literature which indicates that the use of beaver scent (Castor) may provide a repellant or deterrent effect (Aleswik 1968, Butler and Butler 1979, Muller-Schwarze et al. 1983). Castor, which is available from trapping outfitters, could be applied to trees or old lodges in areas where the introduction of beaver needs to be discouraged. With experience, the park can determine if this technique is effective and practical.

Return to the top of the page

3. Water Level Control Devices
A number of individuals and groups have developed a variety of devices which attempt to control the water level in beaver ponds. The park and others in this area have fabricated and installed several types of "beaver pipe" with varying degrees of success. Persistent beaver were able to overcome some devices completely.

The devices consist of some type of conduit, either rigid PVC plastic, corrugated plastic tubing, metal pipe, or fabricated wooden box or steel mesh cylinder. The conduit is used in conjunction with metal screening or fencing which is arranged to prevent beaver from plugging the conduit. Depending upon its design, the device is placed in or near a culvert pipe, bridge, road ditch, or beaver dam. Beaver continue to dam against the device, however, the devices are designed to maintain water flow in spite of the beaver's efforts.

The success of water level control devices appears to depend upon site conditions, watershed size, and the persistence of individual beaver. Where an acceptable level of impounded water can be determined, and where site conditions are suitable, these devices provide a good means for coexistence with beaver. With experience, Resources Management staff will develop criteria and techniques for the successful use of water level control devices in the park.

This is most likely to be true where:

a.) watershed size is relatively small, i.e. on the order of tens of acres rather than hundreds,

b.) the topography of the site is such that there is a sufficient elevational difference between the pond water level and the facility that requires protection,

c.) the topography allows for the temporary storage of excess water near the beaver pond after heavy rains.

However, there are certain to be cases where watersheds are too large, floodplains too small or the topography unsuitable for these devices to be effective.

Return to the top of the page

4. Artificial Devices
Managers in at least one other Park Service unit have used artificial devices to encourage beaver to build their dams in particular locations. Some success has been shown where devices such as sand bags were placed where they could concentrate or direct waterflow. After a time beaver may incorporate such devices in their dam building activity.

This strategy could be used where beaver activity would be non-damaging only if the water impoundment could be confined to nonsensitive areas. For example, a road, trail or picnic area may be adjacent to a stream where beaver activity has begun. Dam building downstream of the area could back up water onto the facility causing damage. However, dam building upstream of a facility may not cause any damage, since water is impounded only upstream of the dam.

Dam building upstream of the sensitive area could be permitted or even "directed" so as to avoid discouraging the beaver while still protecting a specific area. Sandbags could be placed alongside new dams in a manner which would attempt to control the direction that dam building will take.

Return to the top of the page

5. Dismantling of Beaver Structures
In certain situations, beaver structures, i.e. dams, lodges and food caches, pose an immediate threat in developed areas. The park has already experienced the blocking of drainage structures such as pond spillway pipes, earthen emergency spillways, culvert pipes, and bridges. Where such structures become sufficiently plugged, they will fail, resulting in the flooding of roads and facilities, or the overtopping of dams. Such obvious threats to public safety will require the prompt removal of beaver structures by Resource Management or Maintenance personnel as appropriate.

Park staff and volunteers will report blocked drainage structures to Resource Management personnel. The Resource Management staff will work to increase the awareness of park staff and volunteers to the problem of blocked drainage structures. Maintenance staff and Rangers in particular will be urged to look for and report such problems, as they are most likely to encounter them.

In many instances, the removal of beaver structures is likely to be the first action which is taken by resource managers. Oftentimes, the first noticeable impact of beaver in an area is the plugging of drainage pipes or dam building under bridges. Since the plugging of these structures cannot be tolerated, beaver structures will be removed immediately. Estimates of the effectiveness of removing beaver structures varies widely. However, the recent experience of park staff indicates that it is effective in discouraging beaver in at least some instances, and is necessary to provide time for other control measures to be implemented.

The removal of beaver structures and the more intrusive control measures which follow will be implemented in cases where sensitive facilities or resources are threatened and water level control devices cannot be used.

Return to the top of the page

6. Live Trapping and Relocation
Where it can be determined that a.) the impacts of beaver activity cannot be tolerated and, b.) other strategies or devices are not effective or appropriate, then the animal(s) will be removed from the site. Park Service policies require live trapping and relocation outside park boundaries before allowing relocation within the park.

The Resource Management Specialist will be responsible for initiating and overseeing any beaver trapping that may be required.

Several live-traps are available for the capture of beaver with little apparent impact on the animal. The park had reasonable success in live-trapping five beaver in 1991. Additional experience in setting and baiting traps should make this effort more efficient, in terms of the time and personnel required.

To the extent possible, beaver family units will be relocated as a group. Relocation sites will be arranged in advance of anticipated needs. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, has agreed to accept ten beavers in 1992 at a nearby wildlife area, which is subject to public hunting and trapping. Relocation may also occur in areas which do not allow hunting and trapping, such as local metropark or private lands. Relocation to sites within the park will occur only when alternative sites are not available.

It should be noted that relocation of problem animals does not guarantee that they will remain where they are placed. It is preferred that the relocation site be a substantial distance away, to ensure that the animal does not return to the original problem area.

Park managers must be aware that suitable relocation sites may not be available at some point in time. It is reasonable to assume that as the beaver population in northeast Ohio continues to grow, all suitable habitat will be occupied.

Return to the top of the page

7. Destruction of Animals
Where it can be determined that a.) the impacts of beaver activity cannot be tolerated, b.) available strategies and devices have not proven effective or appropriate, and c.) live-trapping and relocation is not possible, then problem animals will be destroyed.

Kill traps are available which are humane and effective. Traps will be set in a manner which minimizes the potential for visitors, staff and other wildlife to encounter the trap.

The Resource Management Specialist will be responsible for initiating and overseeing any kill-trapping that becomes necessary. The approval of the Chief, Resources Management and Visitor Protection will be required for destruction of problem beaver by kill-trapping. This is an exception to approval procedure in the Nuisance and Hazardous Animals Control Plan previously approved.

Return to the top of the page

8. Introduction of Predator Species
One reason for the rapid increase in beaver populations at present is the lack of sufficient pressure from predatory species. Beaver have few natural predators in this area. It is extremely unlikely that large predators such as wolves would ever play a significant role in controlling beaver in this urban area. However, species such as fox, coyote and mink are certain to have an impact as their numbers are increasing.

Resource Management staff will investigate the potential for restoring extirpated predator species. In addition, the park will cooperate with other natural resource agencies in their efforts to introduce predator species on lands adjacent to the park.

Return to the top of the page

9. Potential Management Efforts
The most recent studies of beaver population dynamics in northeast Ohio is over twenty years old. (Henry and Brookhouf, 1969) It indicated a 50 percent per year increase in the number of beaver. The authors state that at that rate, about a third of the population could be harvested and a stable population maintained. They further state that if population growth is such that beavers become a nuisance, the rate of harvest can be increased and still permit a stable or slightly increasing population.

Park staff should cooperate with state wildlife managers to encourage increased trapping on adjacent non federal land, as a means for reducing population pressures on park lands.

While it is never considered a desirable control measure, park managers must be aware that an increasing number of beaver will be killed by automobiles (at least four in the last year).

Return to the top of the page

10. Information Activities
Resource Management and Interpretive staff will cooperate in an effort to educate park planners, visitors and neighbors about a variety of beaver related issues. Topics will include avoiding beaver damage problems, park development impacts on beaver, beaver effects on park resources, and beaver's role in park ecosystems.

Park interpretive and environmental education efforts could include an emphasis on beaver as a "keystone species," and the critical role of beaver in the restoration of natural processes in the CVNRA.

Return to the top of the page

11. Monitoring Actions
a.) Monitoring Beaver Activities in Problem Areas
Beaver activity in such areas will be inspected at least weekly by Resource Management staff or volunteers, so that required management actions can be properly planned and implemented.

b.) Monitor Water Level Control Devices
Water level control devices will be inspected daily following installation by Resource Management Staff or volunteers to ensure that they are functioning effectively. After a week of daily inspections, weekly inspections will occur as long as beaver are active at a particular site.

c.) Monitor Beaver Population
The current inventory will be updated at least annually. Newly affected areas will be identified. Currently active sites will be evaluated for impacts to sensitive resources.

Estimates of the park's beaver population could be made from the air, if and when that becomes necessary. Cooperation with Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, would benefit the park's efforts in this area.

Return to the top of the page

12. Research Actions
The CVNRA Resource Management Plan and Research Needs Catalogue identify the following areas of need at this time.

a.) Determine Beaver Habitat Distribution

b.) Determine the Natural Role of Beaver in the CVNRA

c.) Determine the Historic Role of Beaver in the CVNRA.

The park will actively pursue support for such research.

Return to the top of the page

Selected References
Aleksiuk, M. 1968. Scent-mound communication, territoriality, and population regulation in the beaver (Castor canadensis Kuhl). J. Mammal. 49:759-762.

Butler, R.B., and L. A. Butler. 1979. Toward a functional interpretation of scent marking in the beaver. (Castor canadensis). Behav. Neural. Biol. 26:442-454.

Henry, D.B., and T. A. Bookhout. 1969. Productivity of beavers in northeastern Ohio. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:927-32.

___________, 1970. Utilization of Woody Plants by Beavers in Northeastern Ohio. J. Sci.70:123-27.

King, C.C., Bissel, J.K., and Frank, G.W. 1979. Ohio's Natural Heritage, Michael B. Lafferty, editor, The Ohio Academy of Sciences, Columbus.

Laramie, H. A., Jr. 1963. A device for control of problem beavers. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:471-476.

Muller-Schwarze, D., S. Heckman, and B. Stagge. 1983. Behavior of free-ranging beaver (Castor canadensis).

Novak, M., 1987. Beaver In Wild. Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America, Ontario Trappers Assoc.

Ryden, Hope. Lily Pond.

Return to the top of the page

Acknowledgements
The outline and some of the arguments and strategies discussed in this Beaver Management Plan are based on an excellent problem statement written by James Benedict, formerly of Voyageurs National Park.

The issue of beaver management in the largely urban environment of northeast Ohio is a new one. Consequently, it should be understood that the strategies for dealing with these problems will be revised and improved on a continuing basis. The cooperation of many natural resource managers and scientists will remain essential to the success of this effort.

Return to the top of the page

Persons Contacted
Stephen D. Wilcox and Clyde Simmerer, Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Akron, Ohio

Rick Tyler and Ed Kuilder, Cleveland Metroparks, Cleveland, Ohio

Dr. Steve Jenkins and Doug Smith, Dept. of Biology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada

Harold Werner, Sequoia National Park, National Park Service

Mack Brock, Voyageurs National Park, National Park Service

Robert Brander, Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, National Park Service

Virgil Noble, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska

Steve Cinnamon, Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska

Return to the top of the page

Environmental Compliance (NEPA)
The significant actions proposed in this plan are covered by the following categorical exclusions:

7.4 E.(7) Removal of park resident individuals of nonthreatened/endangered species which post a danger to visitors, threaten park resources or become a nuisance in areas surrounding a park, when such removal is included in an approved resource management plan.

7.4 C.(3) Routine maintenance and repairs to nonhistoric structures, facilities, utilities, grounds and trails.

7.4 C.(8) Replacement in kind of minor structures and facilities with little or no change in location, capacity or appearance.

7.4 C. (12) Minor trail relocation, development of compatible trail networks on logging roads or other established routes, and trail maintenance and repair.

7.4 C (20) Construction of fencing enclosures or boundary fencing posing no effect on wildlife migrations.

7.4 E (2) Day-to-day resource management and research activities.

In addition, the control of nuisance animals in the park is addressed in the Environmental Assessment and FONSI for Nuisance and Hazardous Animal Control (1984).

Return to the top of the page

APPENDIX 1 - See our Beaver Census page.

APPENDIX 2 - Not Currently available online.

APPENDIX 3

Natural Resources Management Guideline

NPS-77

Chapter 2

Page 37-38

F. Nuisance Animals
Nuisance animals (and pest animals) may be controlled in limited or localized situations where a problem exists because of conflicts with visitor safety, property, natural features, cultural resources, or park facilities or operations. Impacts from nuisance animals fall short of the pest category designation. Animals falling under a "pest" designation are covered under the IPM guidelines (see Chapter 2). The IPM guidelines should be referred to prior to any control of a nuisance or pest.

To avoid problems, inventories of potential nuisance animal situations should be made prior to the planning of any park facility, structure, or activity. Examples would include surveys of beaver dams or potential beaver habitat, snake dens, yellow jacket concentrations, marmot colonies and so on. Structures and developments should avoid rattlesnake dens, marmot colonies, mineral licks, and any other concentration area. Facilities should be built to minimize problems after reviewing the known information. As an example, most beaver problems can be reduced by using clear span bridges rather than culverts, avoiding center pier bridges, and routing trails and roads away from known habitat.

Studies should be conducted to determine whether relocation of nuisance animals would cause additional problems such as disruption of the social system of saturated populations into which they are relocated. In these cases, destruction becomes the preferred alternative.

Removal of nuisance animals may be undertaken to reduce a threat to public health or safety (e.g., rattlesnakes or yellow jackets). In some instances, such removal requires a FWS permit. (for further information, see NPS-53, the Special Park Uses guideline). The removal should be restricted to developed, historic, and special use areas only. Removal is also justified to protect public health (e.g., water supplies) and to protect private property or park facilities. In this situation, again, only limited removal is normally justifiable. Alternatives to control, such as warning signs, vegetation modifications, or removal of facilities, are always preferable to control.

Actions which can be taken, in order of priority, are relocation of facilities or mitigation of the problems, trapping and relocation, aversive conditioning, and destruction, including poisoning under an approved IPM plan or request.

Return to the top of the page