Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflicts through Adaptive Management

Final Report

Glynnis A. Hood, Principal Investigator In collaboration with Research Associates: Kalene Gould, Melissa Tollitt, Allison Rodvang, and Nick Yarmey Department of Science, Augustana Campus University of Alberta, Camrose, Alberta, T4V 2R3

Prepared for Beaver County

June 20, 2016 ©2016, Hood, University of Alberta

Mitigating Human-Beaver Conflicts through Adaptive Management

Final Report

Glynnis A. Hood, Principal Investigator In collaboration with Research Associates: Kalene Gould, Melissa Tollitt, and Allison Rodvang Department of Science, Augustana Campus University of Alberta, Camrose, Alberta, T4V 2R3

Prepared for Beaver County

June 20, 2016 ©2016, Hood, University of Alberta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This research assessed human-wildlife interactions as they relate to the efficacy of current management and policy approaches to common human-wildlife conflicts within natural and developed sites in Beaver

County, Alberta. Over the course of four months (May to August 2015), we collected data relevant to several management considerations regarding human-wildlife interactions, including: polices/legislation for mitigating human-wildlife conflicts, flooding by beavers, livestock predation by coyotes, ground squirrel burrowing, economic costs and benefits, and biodiversity measures relative to adaptive management. We also installed four pond levellers to counter flooding by beavers on private lands. Our analysis of these data continued throughout the fall and winter, and are presented in this report.

As permitted by the Agricultural Pests Act, Beaver County is responsible for facilitating the management of landowner conflicts with Richardson’s ground squirrels, coyotes, stripped skunks, and North America beavers. Other species, such as white-tailed deer, mule deer and elk, are also of concern despite their direct management by the province of Alberta. Following a review of legislation and various policies, we were able to identify key areas of wildlife management under County control. In particular, our analysis of County records determined that both Poison 1080 for coyote management and 2% liquid strychnine for ground squirrels and northern pocket gophers were two common methods for management and control of these wildlife species. Over a 16-month period, on average sets of six Poison 1080 tablets were issued 22 times (132 tablets total; n = 16 landowners), while over 4 months a total of 1,347 bottles of 2% liquid strychnine were issued (73 instances for 65 landowners). Seven skunk traps were issued as well, but it is likely that most conflicts with skunks were handled privately by landowners, without the need for County traps. Often, beaver issues were managed by the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer, a contract trapper, and/or our research team. Various management options are provided in the County’s

Level of Service Pest Control Policy and Procedure Handbook.

In addition to examining County complaint records, we also established four wildlife cameras in various locations across the County. In total, 834 images recorded five different species of wildlife; there were an additional 113 images for which species could not be determined due to lack of clarity of the images.

One image in particular, a raccoon, provided confirmation that this species has moved northward and likely will become more common in the County in coming years. As seen in urban and rural jurisdictions across North America, new management issues are expected to arise with raccoons, which will require a new set of management interventions.

The complaint data allowed us to create an interactive wildlife map within a Geographic Information

System software (GIS; ESRI ArcMap 10.3). A lack of access to GIS by most County employees inspired us to use a software package that would allow use of this map for all County staff. Ultimately we transferred the maps onto Microsoft PowerPoint and then to Adobe Acrobat, where a series of hyperlinks allowed for county-wide or division-specific searches by species. A series of species-specific lethal and non-lethal management options were included on each map window. Because the map is static (not directly connected to a database that can be constantly updated), we suggest that a centralized database be maintained for wildlife complaints that can then be used to update the GIS data layers over time.

As in 2014, we continued our work on beaver management solutions within Beaver County. Through the use of extensive field mapping and GIS, we were able to produce a series of maps of existing beaver sites within the main waterways in the northwestern reaches of the County, as well as the location of all beavers lodges (occupied and unoccupied) relative to human developments. Once again, we ran a point- density analysis to identify “hot spots” of beaver activity in the northwestern part of the County. As before, high beaver densities are often associated with the rural residential subdivisions. This association is likely because landowners in these subdivisions prefer to build near water features, and

the subdivisions are in more natural areas that are further away from prime agricultural lands. Future development decisions by the County could take prime beaver habitats into account to help reduce conflicts.

We also installed four additional pond levellers this year on private lands exclusively. The total number of pond levellers in the County is now thirteen. To date, all pond levellers are working as designed, with only a minor amount of maintenance required. These maintenance costs were combined with preparation and installation costs to develop a cost-benefit analysis. This analysis compared the present value (PV) net benefits of installing pond levellers relative to the cost of traditional methods used by the

County. The complete cost-benefit analysis determined that the pond levellers resulted in a $227,590.19

PV net benefit when wetland valuation was included in the analysis. A sensitivity analysis, which excludes wetland valuation costs, resulted in a PV net benefit of $34,391.96 over two year at the 13 sites. We consider these values to be conservative because the County data are incomplete, thus resulting in a heavier weighting of costs towards the pond levellers than County interventions.

Additional data will be provided by the County so we can refine this assessment.

At each site where a pond leveller was installed, we conducted pre- and post-installation sampling of aquatic macroinvertebrates. These data will allow us to assess any changes in biodiversity associated with the installation of the pond levellers, as well as to provide an indication of wetland health within the waterbodies in the northwestern part of the County. To date, 287 samples have been collected, which includes post-installation samples collected one year after the 2015 installation dates. We anticipate approximately 112,037 individual macroinvertebrates will be identified by the end of this research project.

Finally, we presented various aspects of this research at eight different conferences or provincial workshops. Locations ranged from provincial venues to international academic conferences. Interest in

this research continues to grow, in particular relative to the pond levelling devices and the cost-benefit analysis.

Hood 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1. Human-wildlife interactions ...... 10 1.2. Human-beaver conflicts ...... 11 1.3. Adaptive management and biodiversity ...... 11 1.4. Goals and objectives ...... 12 1.5. Report organization ...... 13 2. Methods ...... 15 2.1. Study area ...... 15 2.2. Human-wildlife interactions ...... 17 Policy and legislation review and assessment ...... 17 Key wildlife species of concern ...... 17 Wildlife cameras ...... 18 Interactive wildlife conflict map ...... 19 2.3. Human-beaver conflicts ...... 20 Field mapping ...... 20 Pond levellers ...... 20 Cost-benefit analysis ...... 20 Efficacy of previous and new pond levellers ...... 23 2.4. Biodiversity sampling ...... 24 2.5. Additional activities ...... 25 3. Results ...... 27 3.1. Human-wildlife interactions ...... 27 Policy and legislation review and assessment ...... 27 Key wildlife species of concern ...... 30 Wildlife cameras ...... 30 Interactive wildlife conflict map ...... 32 3.2. Human-beaver conflicts ...... 38 Field mapping ...... 38 Pond levellers ...... 39 Cost-benefit analysis ...... 41

i

Hood 2016

Efficacy of previous and new pond levellers ...... 46 3.3. Biodiversity sampling ...... 48 3.4. Additional activities ...... 51 4. Discussion ...... 53 4.1. Human-wildlife interactions ...... 54 4.2. Human-beaver conflicts ...... 55 4.3. Biodiversity sampling ...... 56 4.4. Additional activities ...... 57 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 59 6. Literature Cited ...... 61 APPENDIX A: BEAVER COUNTY PEST-CONTROL POLICIES ...... 67 APPENDIX B: SITE MAPS ...... 69 APPENDIX C: RICHARDSON’S GROUND SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 75 APPENDIX D: COYOTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 77 APPENDIX E: STRIPED SKUNK MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 79 APPENDIX F: NORTH AMERICAN BEAVER MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 81 APPENDIX G: DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 83 APPENDIX H: SITE PHOTOS AND INSTALLATION COSTS...... 85

ii

Hood 2016

List of Figures

Figure 1. Beaver County in east-central Alberta. The inset map shows the major towns and the divisional boundaries within the County...... 16 Figure 2. Locations of wildlife camera installations in Beaver County, Alberta from June 2015 to August, 2015...... 31 Figure 3. Photo taken of a raccoon (Procyon lotor) on 23 August 2015 in Division 5 in Beaver County, Alberta. The camera used was a Reconyx PC900 HyperFire Professional Covert IR...... 32 Figure 4. Map of all recorded beaver, coyote and ground squirrel complaints as derived through phone- in Service Request Forms from December 2014 to May 2015 (beavers), issuance of Poison 1080 from January 2014 to May 2015 (coyotes), and issuance of strychnine from March 2014 to July 2014 (ground squirrels). The image is one of the templates used to create the interactive map provided to the County...... 33 Figure 5. Point density (#lodges/km2) of beaver lodges identified through orthophoto analysis in the region of Beaver County within the Cooking Lake Moraine (Beaver Hills). Data used in Hood and Yarmey (2015) were supplemented through on-screen digitizing from the 2015 orthophotos, with some sites confirmed through field mapping. Areas within provincial jurisdiction (i.e., protected areas) were not included in the analysis...... 39 Figure 6. Locations of pond leveller installations in Beaver County, Alberta from June 2014 to August, 2015...... 40

iii

Hood 2016

List of Tables

Table 1. Key sections of provincial legislation involved in human-wildlife management in Beaver County, Alberta. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act is shortened to EPEA...... 27 Table 2. Wildlife sightings captured by trail cameras from June to August 2015 in four locations within Beaver County (Figure 2). Counts are cumulative and will often contain multiple counts of the same individual(s) over time. Below the total counts, the known distribution of males, females, yearlings and young of year are in parentheses (M,F,Y,YOY). Individuals categorized as “unknown” relative to gender and age class are only included in the total count...... 31 Table 3. Gopher Acknowledgement of Purchase of 2% liquid strychnine concentrate from Beaver County, Alberta from 18 March 2014 to 19 July 2014 (n = 1,347 bottles over 4 months, N/A indicates that number of bottles was not provided). Data are from County records only. “Gopher” refers to Richardson’s ground squirrels and northern pocket gophers...... 35 Table 4. Coyote complaints by Division in Beaver County, Alberta from 2 January 2014 to 4 May 2015 and issuance of Poison 1080 tablets by the County (n = 132 tablets in 16 months). Data are from County records only...... 37 Table 5. Summary of average costs by year (2014, 2015) for the installation of pond levellers at problem beaver sites in Beaver County, Alberta. These costs included materials, on-site labour, and transportation to the install location. All but two sites in 2014 (n = 9) were at culvert sites, while all sites in 2015 (n = 4) were on private land containing stream systems...... 42 Table 6. Summary of additional costs by year (2014, 2015) for the monitoring and maintenance of pond levellers at problem beaver sites in Beaver County, Alberta. All but two sites in 2014 (n = 9) were at culvert sites, while all sites in 2015 (n = 4) were on private land containing stream systems...... 42 Table 7. Estimated expenses for the mitigated County expenses (based on 2014 costs) for the four sites where pond levellers were installed in 2015 to managed flooding by beavers on private lands in Beaver County, Alberta...... 43 Table 8. Estimated total costs for Beaver County for the 2014 and 2015 sites where pond levellers were then installed (n = 13). Costs are averaged across all sites based on the four sites for which there were adequate data received from Beaver County staff...... 44 Table 9. Relative Wetland Value Assessment Unit for each pond leveller location (n = 13) as determined by the 2015 Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive. In-lieu fee rates are per hectare relative to their location in the province. Wetland areas were derived in a Geographic Information System from 2007 and 2010 orthophotos of Beaver County...... 44 Table 10. Full cost-benefit analysis inputs and the resultant present value (PV) benefit for installing pond-levelling devices compared to traditional methods for beaver management used by Beaver County, Alberta. We used the following formula in our calculations: PV = CV/(1+SDR)year. County expenses do not include trapping costs ($67 852.78 from June to December, 2015 because the total value could not be accurately broken down to site specific averages). They also do not contain full-cost accounting for all mechanical interventions (e.g., backhoes) at the sites...... 45 Table 11. Sensitivity analysis inputs and the resultant present value (PV) benefit for installing pond- levelling devices compared to traditional methods for beaver management used by Beaver County, Alberta. We used the following formula in our calculations: PV = CV/(1+SDR)year. County expenses do not

iv

Hood 2016

include trapping costs ($67 852.78 from June to December, 2015 because the total value could not be accurately broken down to site specific averages). They also do not contain full-cost accounting for all mechanical interventions (e.g., backhoes) at the sites...... 46 Table 12. Current condition (June 2016) of all pond levellers installed from June 2014 to August 2015. Site numbers correspond to those on Figure 4 which are derived from GPS waypoints (WPT). Waypoint numbers were used exclusively in Hood and Yarmey (2015)...... 47 Table 13. Costs for installation of pond levelling devices in Beaver County from June 2014 to August 2015. Site numbers correspond to those on Figure 4 which are derived from GPS waypoints. For the County costs, the values are only for what work had been completed to 31 August 2015. Additional data are to be determined...... 48 Table 14. Number of aquatic macroinvertebrate by taxa identified in six ponds in Beaver County, Alberta prior to installation of pond levelling devices from June to August, 2014. Brackets indicate number of samples analyzed by August 2015. WPT 94 is a site without an installation that can act as a control...... 50 Table 15. Presentations and other coverage for the project...... 51

v

Hood 2016

vi

Hood 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the generous financial support of Beaver County.

Special thanks extend to Beaver County Chief Administrative Officer Bob Beck, Agricultural Fieldman

Aimee Boese, and Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer Bernadette Sidoroff. The County Councillors were very supportive throughout the project. Additionally, my field research assistants Kalene Gould, Melissa

Tollitt, Allison Rodvang, and Nick Yarmey were instrumental in meeting the goals of this research. Dr.

Varghese Manaloor was instrumental in developing the cost-benefit analysis.

vii

Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 8 Hood 2016

1. INTRODUCTION

This research was conducted at the request of Beaver County. The purpose of this project is to assess human-wildlife interactions as they relate to the efficacy of current management and policy approaches to common human-wildlife conflicts within natural and developed sites in Beaver County, Alberta. The

County extends from the Cooking Lake Moraine (CLM) in the northwest, to the prairie parkland ecosystems to the east. Within east-central Alberta, the CLM is dominated by aspen forests and extensive wetland habitats (Hood et al. 2007), which in turn support biodiversity and important biogeochemical processes (Whigham et al. 1988). Several protected areas lie within the moraine and offer a variety of recreational opportunities. The remainder of the County is comprised of agricultural lands, medium-sized to small towns/villages, and various categories of public lands.

Many species of wildlife live and move throughout the County, with varying levels of interactions with

County residents. For example, North American beavers (Castor canadensis) are abundant in the area and there has been a long history of conflict with humans, especially in areas of high recreational and residential use. Coyotes and ground squirrels are ubiquitous and, as with beavers, are activity managed by County staff. As such, Beaver County provides ideal study sites for research into human-wildlife interactions. In the past, much of our study area was specific to the part of the Cooking Lake Moraine within Beaver County, although we also used reference sites within the Cooking Lake/Blackfoot

Provincial Recreation Area (CLBPRA) where pond leveling devices were already established during my previous research. Our current research addresses the County more broadly, with the exception of the pond-levelling installations remaining within the CLM. Research on human-wildlife conflicts incorporates the entire County and allows us to broaden our scope beyond the dry mixed-wood boreal forests to the aspen parkland and agricultural areas that dominate the County. Ultimately, this research builds on our past investigations in a manner that provides the County with a more holistic view of wildlife management within their jurisdiction.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 9 Hood 2016

1.1. HUMAN-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS

A global trend of increased adverse human-wildlife interactions has resulted in a rise in landowner complaints in agricultural, urban and rural-residential landscapes (Fall and Jackson 2002, Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013). Problems arising from interactions among humans and various species of wildlife include: wildlife-borne diseases, invasive species, overabundant wildlife populations, vehicle collisions, property/agricultural damage, and predation of domestic animals (Bruggers et al. 2002). Increasingly, methods to counter adverse human-wildlife interactions consider adaptations to increased suburban development, differing public attitudes relative to animal welfare, and technological and scientific advancements (Bruggers et al. 2002, Fall and Jackson 2002, Waldron et al. 2013). These emerging management approaches not only mitigate damage to human property, they also allow promote landowner support for the persistence of sensitive species and ecological processes (Sifuna 2010). For example, Waldron and her colleagues (2002) used occupancy models to reduce human-rattlesnake interactions, which then facilitated agencies to meet their rattlesnake conservation goals. Similar models could be applied to other taxa, while still maintaining active field-based management.

With urban encroachment into natural areas and more recreational use of many protected areas, a broader range of wildlife species can become involved in adverse human-wildlife interactions, thus increasing management costs and tensions between land managers and user groups (Madden 2004).

Therefore, creative solutions are required to reduce conflicts and accommodate public demands for adaptive wildlife management, while still acknowledging budget and staffing constraints for various management agencies. Given these challenges, it is important to assess current areas of human-wildlife interactions and test effective mitigations, technological and policy tools to maintain these important habitats and wildlife populations while reducing conflicts and associated costs.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 10 Hood 2016

1.2. HUMAN-BEAVER CONFLICTS

One of the most common complaints involving human-wildlife interactions is flooding caused by beavers

(Bruggers et al. 2002). A typical method to manage flooding is to remove the beaver dam and drain the area; however, studies indicate that these wetlands provide critical habitat for fish, waterfowl, and other aquatic species (Naiman et al. 1986, Brown et al. 1996, France 1997, Wright et al. 2002, Hood and

Larson 2014). These wetlands also tend to be more resilient to drought (Hood and Bayley 2008,

Westbrook et al. 2006). Pond-levelling devices are increasingly used to allow the wetland to remain, while still reducing flooding by beavers (Lisle 2003, Taylor and Singleton 2014). These alternative management methods are receiving considerable attention and have shown positive results in follow-up studies, when conducted (Nolte et al. 2000, Jensen et al. 2001, Lisle 2003). In 2014, my research team and I installed ten such devices in Beaver County, and then installed an additional four in 2015. I have also installed a dozen more in the Cooking Lake / Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area since 2011. These devices have provided financial savings to the park over the past three years. To date, almost all are working well, with others requiring some minor site-specific modifications to ensure optimal function.

Pond-levelling devices are just one example of science-based management approaches used to address emerging issues in human-wildlife interactions, and to reduce the decline of biodiversity associated with anthropogenic wetland loss and habitat modifications (Mensing et al. 1998, Gibbs 2000).

1.3. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

In 2012, Bradley Cardinale and his colleagues published a paper in Nature entitled Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity in which they described four emerging trends regarding the consequences of the loss of biodiversity on ecosystem function (Cardinale et al. 2012). The first trend states that large-scale loss of biodiversity could rival other significant drivers of global environmental change. The authors further explain the role of biodiversity in nutrient cycling, biogeochemical cycles, the decomposition of

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 11 Hood 2016

organic wastes and the associated impacts on biodiversity loss at various scales. Two of the most impacted ecosystems relative to biodiversity loss include freshwater habitats (Junk et al. 2013) and native grasslands (Samson and Knopf 1994). Additionally, the lethal control of native wildlife to enhance agricultural production and increase game populations has reduced biodiversity and associated ecosystem functions (Bergstrom et al. 2013). The legal and fiduciary responsibilities of governments to manage both human and ecological components within their jurisdictions present a difficult challenge.

Adaptive natural resource management presents a means to adjust and study management actions to determine which approaches best suit both management and ecological goals (Williams 2011, Westgate et al. 2013). With this approach, managers and researchers view management actions/policies as experiments and, through monitoring and analysis, empirically identify which interventions are successful and which interventions require specific improvements or outright abandonment (Walters and Holling 1990). Despite its long history in the field of resource management, however, adaptive management still lacks full implementation in many areas. Often the problem with implementation lies in a lack of original data or overall time and resources.

1.4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our project is to assess human-wildlife interactions as they relate to the efficacy of current management and policy approaches to common human-wildlife interactions within natural and developed sites in Beaver County, Alberta. The objectives of this project are to: 1) identify the key wildlife species of concern relative to human-wildlife interactions within Beaver County and assess how current policy aligns with provincial legislation, 2) build on Objective 1 to develop a GIS-based management tool to identify division-specific management approaches for key wildlife species that are of management concern, 3) continue to work with the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer at Beaver

County to identify and continue to create a Geographic Information System (GIS) map of problem

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 12 Hood 2016

beaver conflict sites, 4) continue to document the existing beaver lodges within Beaver County’s portion of the Cooking Lake Moraine (CLM) to allow for a current population estimates and detection of potential problem areas in the future, 5) document the existing protocols, costs and frequency of beaver management by the County for a cost-benefit analysis, 6) assess and test the effectiveness of existing and additional pond-levelling devices, and, 7) establish long-term research sites to study differences in biodiversity at wetlands that are regularly drained, wetlands with pond levellers, and wetlands that are neither drained nor modified with pond levellers.

1.5. REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report presents the results of a year-long study (May 2015 –April 2016) of human-wildlife interactions as they relate to the efficacy of current management and policy approaches to common human-wildlife interactions within natural and developed sites in Beaver County. In Section 2, the report first describes the methodology for assessing current management of “declared agricultural nuisance pests” directed by the County’s Level of Service Pest Control Policy and Procedure Handbook in compliance with Alberta’s Agricultural Pests Act. Specifically, key pest species are identified through

County records, and current management actions quantified and mapped in a GIS. Wildlife cameras provide supplemental data to aid in identifying common and emerging wildlife species using various location in the County. Section 2 also outlines ongoing mapping of problem sites and beaver activity within Beaver County. As in previous years, we describe the methods for identifying costs of beaver management activities within the County as well as the methods used in the development of a cost- benefit analysis. We also describe activities relative to additional pond-leveller installations to mitigate flooding by beavers. Finally, this section of the report outlines methods used to assess ongoing biodiversity measures through the collection of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Section 3 provides the associated research results, which include visual and GIS outcomes. Section 4 provides a discussion of the results as they relate to the study goals and objectives. Section 5 presents the overall conclusions

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 13 Hood 2016

and recommendations, while Section 6 lists the literature cited in the report. The Appendices provide supporting materials and species-specific management plans that are primarily authored by my research assistants, with some modifications by the primary investigator (Hood).

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 14 Hood 2016

2. METHODS

2.1. STUDY AREA

Beaver County (3,316 km²) is a municipal district located in east-central Alberta (Figure 1). Its administration, which represents 5,689 constituents (2011 census), is based in Ryley, AB, although county councillors live in and represent five distinct divisions within the rural municipality: Division 1

(northwest of Tofield), Division 2 (southwest of Tofield), Division 3 (Ryley/Holden), Division 4

(Holden/Bruce), and Division 5 (Viking/Kinsella). Much of the County is within the Central Parkland natural sub-region, with the northwestern extent within the Dry Mixed-wood Sub-region (Figure 1).

The Central Parkland Natural Sub-region is dominated by agricultural land, interspersed with small aspen groves. There are many pothole wetlands and several small streams that ultimately drain into the

Battle River as part of the North Saskatchewan River Watershed. There are some public lands in this part of the County, but much is privately owned. The Dry Mixed-wood Sub-region in the County is completely within the Cooking Lake Moraine (CLM), which is dominated by aspen forests and extensive wetland habitats (Hood et al. 2007).

Within the moraine, there are several provincial protected areas immediately adjacent to the County, which offer a variety of recreational opportunities. Beaver are abundant in the area and there has been a long history of conflict with humans, especially in areas of high recreational and rural-residential use.

As with the central parkland, this area is dominated by kettle ponds and small creeks. There are no major rivers within the County. As reference areas for the pond-leveller project, we used several sites within the Cooking Lake/Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area (CLBPRA) where I established pond- levelling devices during my previous research (2011 to 2013).

Soils in the CLM are less agriculturally productive than areas surrounding the moraine. However, some agricultural activities do exist on County lands within this area (e.g., grazing and some crop production).

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 15 Hood 2016

A common landuse in the morainal part of the County includes rural-residential subdivisions, which are often adjacent to areas with high habitat suitability for beavers (Hood and Yarmey 2015). Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and balsam poplar (P. balsamifera) dominate the forested areas, although white spruce (Picea glauca) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera) are also common. Riparian vegetation includes willow (Salix spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), and rose (Rosa spp.), and various emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation. The interface of roads and private lands with ponds and small streams has resulted in several areas of conflict between humans and beavers (Hood and Yarmey 2015).

Figure 1. Beaver County in east-central Alberta. The inset map shows the major towns and the divisional boundaries within the County.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 16 Hood 2016

2.2. HUMAN-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS

Data used to assess human-wildlife interactions within the County resulted from a policy review, Beaver

County complaint databases (in paper format and digital files, and through personal interviews with

County staff/administration), and wildlife cameras placed in representative areas within the County. The data were then analyzed and presented in tabular and electronic format and developed into an interactive map.

Policy and legislation review and assessment We worked with County staff to access all policies and procedures regarding wildlife management and pest-management (related to wildlife) in Beaver County (Appendix A). In particular, we reviewed Beaver

County’s Policy and Procedure Handbook: Administrative Procedure Level of Service – Pest Control

(Agriculture AG-013), and Policy and Procedure Handbook: Policy: Level of Service – Pest Control

(Agriculture AG-013). Additionally, we examined federal and provincial legislation (e.g., Agricultural

Pests Act, Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation) regarding wildlife management in Alberta. Using

County complaint data, we then analyzed Beaver County’s current practises relative to existing policy and legislative procedures, and noted any deviations.

Key wildlife species of concern Depending on the species, wildlife are primarily under provincial or federal jurisdiction; however, various provisions in provincial legislation enable municipalities to manage agricultural pest species in particular. The main focus of this aspect of our research included all species covered by existing procedures in the Policy and Procedure Handbook: Administrative Procedure Level of Service – Pest

Control, including: Richardson’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii), northern pocket gopher

(Thomomys talpoides), coyote (Canis latrans), stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and beaver (Castor canadensis). We also noted other species (e.g., deer) that are potentially problematic in the County, but are not under municipal jurisdiction.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 17 Hood 2016

To quantify the number of complaints, we used various sources from the County. For Richardson’s ground squirrels and northern pocket gophers, we quantified the issuance of 2% Liquid Strychnine. For coyotes, we used records of the issuance of Poison 1080. For skunks, we examined the issuance of skunk traps to County residents. Beaver complaints were identified through Service Request Forms and interviews with the County’s Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer. These data were included in tabular format and used as the basis for the interactive map.

Finally, we performed an extensive literature review of non-lethal and lethal control methods for all species identified in County policies, as well as white-tailed and mule deer to address noted issues with these particular species within the County. From this review, we developed individual reports for

Richardson’s ground squirrels, striped skunks, coyotes, beavers, and deer that addressed: 1) general biology and ecology, 2) management issues (financial, domestic wildlife, human health), 3) management actions/solutions (lethal and non-lethal methods), 4) costs for each method, 5) key people/researchers specializing in species/management methods, and 6) references used in this report.

Wildlife cameras From 18 June to 25 August 2015, we installed three Reconyx wildlife cameras (PC900 HyperFire

Professional Covert IR) at four locations in the County (one camera was moved to another location during the summer to maximize coverage of the County). Cameras were left in place for at least two weeks to minimize human disturbance at each site. We placed cameras at a height of approximately 1 metre off the ground (on a tree or post) along obvious wildlife trails. Whenever the camera was triggered, it would take three photos with five seconds between each photo. We downloaded all images directly to a laptop in the field and then cleared the camera card so it could be used again in the same camera for continuity. All images were identified in the lab and, when possible, classified to species, gender, and age class (adult, yearling, or young-of-year). We also noted the location, time, date,

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 18 Hood 2016

weather, image number and temperature for each photo. Data were entered onto a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed relative to species, age class, gender and location.

Interactive wildlife conflict map From the County complaint data, we were able to use the legal land description or rural address to create shapefiles in a GIS (ArcMap 10.3 by ESRITM, Redlands California) for each species. These files were then used to map the complaint to the exact property location, quarter section, or section. Templates for the final interactive maps were created in the GIS, but because the County does not have its own geomatics specialist on-site, we exported the maps as high-resolution image files that could then be incorporated into Microsoft PowerPoint for further processing.

Once in PowerPoint, we were able to further enhance the images with County logos, animal silhouettes, and relevant text. We then applied hyperlinks to specific images or textboxes that would then link to the appropriate map request. Care was taken to ensure that all maps were exactly the same size and that all images and textboxes were in identical locations on each PowerPoint slide to allow for smooth image transitions when viewing the maps. Once all the hyperlinks were established, we exported the entire

PowerPoint show as an interactive Adobe pdf. The map allows for searches for a specific wildlife species throughout the County, specific wildlife species by Division, or for all species for the whole County, or just by individual Divisions. The data sources for each species map were also included for all map windows.

Wildlife reports associated with each species were referenced on the maps, but not hyperlinked, on the interactive map. This approach was taken to prevent broken hyperlinks if the reports were moved from the original location required by the hyperlink. To provide some management information, key non- lethal and lethal management options were listed for each species. We also provided a list of key references for management of particular species.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 19 Hood 2016

2.3. HUMAN-BEAVER CONFLICTS

Field mapping To identify problem beaver sites within the northwestern part of the County, the research team began field mapping on 14 May, 2015. Specifically, the team targeted areas suggested by the

Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer and mapped all beaver lodges, dams and blocked culverts encountered during these surveys. Data were recorded using a handheld Garmin 60 CX Geographic

Positioning System (GPS) unit with an accuracy of ±3 m. Data were then transferred, via an Excel spreadsheet, into GIS, where we then made a series of maps (Appendix B) to help plan for pond-leveller installations.

We also updated the 2014 beaver lodge density analysis in the area of the County within the CLM. The previous analysis combined field data and lodges identified on a high resolution 2010 aerial photograph.

With the newly obtained 2015 high resolution aerial photograph of the County, additional lodges were added and a new point density analysis conducted in Spatial Analyst in ArcMap 10.3.1.

Pond levellers Working closely with the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer, we identified problem sites within the northwestern part of the County that were suitable for pond-leveller installations. Unlike our work in

2014, all sites in 2015 were on private lands. All land access was arranged and confirmed by the

Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer prior to the commencement of any work by the research team. Pond leveller designs were adapted from methods described by Skip Lisle (Lisle 2003) and Michael Callahan

(http://www.beaversolutions.com/). We also incorporated innovations from our previous installations in the Cooking Lake/Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area from 2011 to 2014, and Beaver County in 2014.

Cost-benefit analysis We collected data from the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer to determine the costs for addressing beaver problems in the County generally, and on each site at which we installed a pond-levelling device

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 20 Hood 2016

specifically. Requested costs included: wages, cost of machinery, and materials (e.g., explosives, backhoes, culvert damage, culvert replacement). We also tracked all of our expenses for the full costs for each of the installation sites to determine complete costs to install the pond levellers (e.g., travel costs, materials, wages, monitoring). All data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet for tracking and analysis purposes.

Model assumptions

For the cost-benefit analysis we incorporated the following model assumptions: 1) the provincial Social

Discount Rate (SDR) of 3% was used to calculate present value of benefits and costs of public facilities, 2) the data provided by the County, which outline the costs to manage flooding by beavers using traditional methods for the problem sites, are seen to represent the average costs to manage/repair all problem sites if water levels were to get too high once a year and, 3) monitoring costs for the sites with installations were treated to be the same across all sites, regardless of location or site-specific considerations (Field and Olewiler 2011).

Omissions

In developing the cost-benefit analysis we were faced with several challenges. Firstly, our analysis could not include the cost of trapping by an external company that occurred at some of our research sites and throughout Beaver County in 2015. However, we did learn that the total cost of the trapping contract with Animal Damage Control was $67,852.78 for the entire County from June to December, 2015.

Therefore, we could not accurately apply these costs to site-specific averages. Also, the present-value

(PV) benefits are underestimated in our analysis due to the following omissions.

1. There was a lack of County records regarding mitigated expenses (only had yearly expenses for

the four install sites from the summer 2015).

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 21 Hood 2016

2. Sites used to calculate average County costs (the four complete sites from 2015) did not include

culvert sites due to lack of data. These sites can require extra equipment and time to mitigate

and have the potential to cause major road damage. Some sites that had long-term, recurring

problems were also not reflected within County costs.

3. County expenses only included work documented by County staff and not mitigation measures

performed by landowners or off-record actions.

4. Wetland valuation for 2015 included the nine sites from 2014 and the additional four sites from

2015, for a total of 13 sites because all of these wetlands were not drained and thus would not

need compensation.

Model inputs

The model inputs for the cost-benefit analysis model quantify the actual expenses (i.e., current value

(CV)), provincial valuation of affected facilities (i.e., social discount rate (SDR) – a rate that is used by government-based cost-benefit analyses to compute the amount spent on public projects over time), and the replacement value for wetland loss (by hectare) as per the new Alberta Wetland Mitigation

Directive (Government of Alberta 2015). All final values were converted to present value (PV) with the formula PV = CV/(1+SDR)year, with a social discount rate (SDR) of 3%. Data collection of individual values include the following items.

Costs 1. Install expenses: supplies and equipment, material and site preparation, labour, transportation.

2. Monitoring and maintenance costs: supplies and equipment, labour, transportation.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 22 Hood 2016

Benefits 1. Mitigated County expenses: based on the 2014 yearly expenses for the 2015 sites, including

labour and equipment costs received from the County (did not include trapping costs or all

mechanical costs – e.g., backhoe costs, see model assumptions above).

2. Wetland valuation: We determined wetland area by delineating each wetland through on-

screen digitizing from 2007 and 2010 orthophotos of Beaver County on ArcMap 10.3 and then

calculating the area through the Field Calculator in the GIS. We then multiplied wetland area by

the in-lieu-fee rates per hectare from the 2015 Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive

(Government of Alberta 2015). In-lieu-fee rates were dependent on the Relative Wetland Value

Assessment Unit (RWVAU), outlined in the 2015 Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive as

determined by location of wetland (all sites were in RWVAU 2 except WPT 102 near Holden,

which was RWVAU 17).

Data Analysis

We inputted all financial data into an Excel spreadsheet to facilitate the comparison of monetary capital costs to build and maintain pond levellers (operating costs) to the benefits (both monetary and non- monetary) of installation and mitigation of beaver-impacted facilities. The main variables for the cost- benefit analysis included the present value (PV) of pond leveler expense, PV monitoring costs, PV cumulative benefits, and the PV of net benefits.

Efficacy of previous and new pond levellers At the beginning of May 2015, we visited and assessed all existing pond levellers in Beaver County (n =

9), the Cooking Lake/Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area (n = 13), and the City of Camrose (n = 2). We determined whether the pond levellers were working as expected and provided maintenance on any that required repairs. The nature of any maintenance requirement was recorded, as well as site-specific

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 23 Hood 2016

factors that might have contributed to any issues with the pond leveller. While at the sites, we took photos of each pond leveller to provide pre- and post-installation comparisons.

2.4. BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING

To measure aquatic biodiversity prior to the installation of a pond leveller, we sampled aquatic macroinvertebrates in four different within-pond habitats (shoreline edge, open water, beaver lodge and beaver channels). For all sampling, we used an aquatic D-net (0.07 m2) with a 500 μm mesh size

(sensu Hood and Larson 2014). For each of the five samples in each habitat type, we used a 1-m sweep through the water column, and then lightly touched the surface of the pond bottom (except in open- water habitats where the benthos was deeper than 1 m). We then pulled the net up through the water column back to the water surface. In vegetated-edge (shoreline) habitats, we moved the net through the submerged parts of the plants as well as the top of the benthos and water column. Finally, we sampled the beaver channel habitats by sweeping the net through the centre of the channel.

In 2015, we duplicated sampling in the same ponds exactly one year following invertebrate sampling at each site to provide a before and after comparison of biodiversity. We also collected macroinvertebrates at all new sites in 2015 (n = 4), and will conduct post-installation field collection one year following the original sampling date. The research team analyzed several of the samples in the lab at the University of

Alberta, Augustana Campus for species identification to the lowest possible taxonomic level and numeration. In February 2016, all remaining samples that we were unable to complete due to time limitations (n = 187) were sent for identification to a biologist in Red Deer (Ms. Charity Briere).

For statistical analyses, the response variables for each habitat type and each pond include: total number of taxa, total number of individuals within each taxon and the Shannon index of biodiversity.

Predictor variables include: habitat type, beaver activity in the ponds (occupied or abandoned), wetland type (lotic, lentic), installation date, and wetland status (before install, after install). From these data, we

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 24 Hood 2016

will calculate biodiversity indices to assess the influence of the pond levellers on aquatic macroinvertebrate communities at each site. We will use multivariate statistics (e.g., NMDS ordination) to identify community response to management actions. Invertebrate analyses are ongoing because of the number of samples and complexity of invertebrate taxa involved.

2.5. ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES

Over the past year, either one of my student researchers or I presented some aspect of this research at various local, provincial, and international conferences. We tabulated these presentations to document the specific talks given over the past year. Beaver County was recognized as a financial supporter for all presentations.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 25 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 26 Hood 2016

3. RESULTS

3.1. HUMAN-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS

Policy and legislation review and assessment We reviewed federal and provincial legislation, and County policies that provided guidance relative to wildlife conflicts at the municipal level. The main piece of provincial legislation guiding the management of agricultural pests is the Agricultural Pests Act. A “pest” is defined as “an animal, bird, insect, plant or disease declared to be a pest under section 2”. Section 2 of the Act states that a pest or a nuisance is “an animal, bird, insect, plant or disease…destroying or harming or is likely to destroy or harm any land, livestock or property in all or part of Alberta”. As per section 2(2) these species of animals and birds do not include the following defined in the Wildlife Act as: big game, a bird of prey, a game bird, an endangered species, or a cervid (member of the deer family) diversified as a livestock animal. Key measures with these pieces of legislation and policies are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Key sections of provincial legislation involved in human-wildlife management in Beaver County, Alberta. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act is shortened to EPEA.

Jurisdiction Act/Policy Section Interpretation Federal Pest Control Products Act 41(1) Allows for the authorization to use an unregistered pest control product for specified purposes. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 2(1) Defines a pest or nuisance species – destroying or harming, or likely to do so, to any land, livestock or property Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 2(2) Excludes species of “animal” or “bird” from 2(1) as those defined in the Wildlife Act as big game, bird of prey, game bird, endangered species, farmed members of the deer family (cervids) Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 3(1) Outlines powers of the Minister for investigations, surveys, program establishment, entering into agreements for controlling/destroying pests or nuisance species. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 4(1) Allows Minister to delegate powers to provincial and federal employees, or local authorities. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 5(1) Outlines the ability of owner or occupant to prevent the management of pest or nuisance species on the owner’s land or land occupied by the owner.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 27 Hood 2016

Jurisdiction Act/Policy Section Interpretation Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 5(2) Outlines requirements for the owner or occupant to prevent establishment of pests, control or destroy all pests, and destroy any crop, vegetation that might aid the spread of a pest. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 6 Directs local authorities or municipalities to take active measure to prevent or control/destroy pests in a municipality. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 7 Outlines direction to the municipalities relative to highways easements. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 9(1) Ability of local authority or Minister to appoint inspectors. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 9(2) Defines an agricultural fieldman under the Agricultural Service Board Act as an inspector Provincial Agricultural Pests Act 17(1) Provides power of an inspector to inspect lands, direct owners, and take specimens. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act: 2(1) Defines pests in the Regulation – Norway rat Pest and Nuisance (Rattus) is the only mammal. Wild boar (Sus Control Regulation scrofa) is listed in section 2. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act: 2(1) Defines nuisances in the Regulation – coyote Pest and Nuisance (Canis latrans), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), all Control Regulation native ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), house mouse (Mus musculus) , bushy-tailed wood rats(Neotoma cinerea), English sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock dove (Columba livia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Magpie (Pica pica). Provincial Agricultural Pests Act: 8 Provides ability for owner or occupant to control Pest and Nuisance a nuisance on land with sound, legal husbandry Control Regulation practices. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act: 14(1) Discusses coyote and skunk control relative to Pest and Nuisance devices and poisonous materials. Control Regulation Provincial Agricultural Pests Act: 14(1) Outlines legal means for issuance of Form 7 Pest and Nuisance permit, only if person has been trained by the Control Regulation Department in use, storage, and handling of devices and poisons in respect to issued permit. Section 4 states that only persons holding Form 7 or Form 8 authorization can use any device or poison to control coyotes and skunks. Provincial Agricultural Pests Act: 14(9) Requires person using device or poison to have Pest and Nuisance letters, numbers or a chemical marker indicating Control Regulation its approval by the Minister. Section 10 provides exemptions – Wildlife Act and EPEA.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 28 Hood 2016

Jurisdiction Act/Policy Section Interpretation Provincial Agricultural Pests Act: 14(11) Outlines conditions for shooting coyotes or Pest and Nuisance skunks (Form 7 permit, written permissions, Control Regulation compliance with other laws). Provincial Agricultural Pests Act: 14(15) Provides conditions for use of dogs for coyote Pest and Nuisance control. Control Regulation Provincial Alberta Agriculture and Use of Compound 1080: “Landowners should not Rural Development be issued, at one time, more than: 3 M-44 Coyote Predation Control cyanide ejectors, 5 M-44 cyanide cartridges, 6 Manual and Study Guide tablets of compound 1080, Livestock protection collars will be determined by an inspector). Provincial Alberta Agriculture and Requests for repeat issuances of devices must be Rural Development closely examined to ensure restricted product Coyote Predation Control use is justified, including steps taken by the Manual and Study Guide landholder to manage the coyote problem. Provincial Alberta Agriculture and All complaints of harassment or predation by Rural Development coyotes should be reported to the local Coyote Predation Control municipality office and all complaints must be Manual and Study Guide investigated by the inspector for verification to determine recommend course of action. Discusses non-target poisonings. Municipal Beaver County Page 1 Eligibility for services for agricultural producers, Administrative or those people who produce Alberta Farm Fuel Procedure: Level of Declaration Number or Canadian Wheat Board Service – Pest Control Permit Number. Municipal Beaver County No 2% Liquid Strychnine released unless Administrative recipient properly instructed for safe handling, Procedure: Level of and signed release form provided. Maximum Service – Pest Control quantity available is two cases per week (48 bottles). Municipal Beaver County Page 2 - For coyote predation control, only livestock Administrative 3 producers with operations in the County are Procedure: Level of eligible. Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer Service – Pest Control (LWCO) shall hold a valid Form 7 Permit. Producer will bury any target and non-target species killed with poison bait. LWCO can refuse issuance of toxicants in specific cases. Municipal Beaver County Page 3 Skunk traps only to be used for removing Administrative problem skunks, not for commercial trapping. Procedure: Level of Service – Pest Control Municipal Beaver County Page 4 Beaver control undertaken by LWCO at request Administrative and access permissions of the landowner. Procedure: Level of Residents within 200 m of proposed blasting Service – Pest Control sites shall be notified.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 29 Hood 2016

Jurisdiction Act/Policy Section Interpretation Municipal Beaver County Policy: Page 1 “For all pests, Beaver County is committed to Level of Service – Pest providing education on an integrated pest Control management strategy.”

All of the items in Table 1, and their related sections within their Acts/Policies are also subject to compliance with Alberta’s Wildlife Act and Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.

Key wildlife species of concern As outlined in Beaver County’s Policy and Procedure Handbook: Administrative Procedure Level of

Service – Pest Control the main species of concern for municipal management are: Richardson’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), coyote (Canis latrans), stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and beaver (Castor canadensis). Other species such as

North American elk (Cervus elaphus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O. hemionus), black bears (Ursus americanus), grey wolves (Canis lupus), and mountain lions (Puma concolor) are of some concern in the County, but are managed by the Alberta Environment and Parks,

Fish and Wildlife Division. We were unable to obtain data from the province relative to these species.

Wildlife cameras Wildlife cameras recorded data from 18 June 2015 to 24 August 2015 in four locations in the County

(Figure 2). In total, there were 834 images that recorded five different species of wildlife (Table 2), including one raccoon (Figure 3). There were an additional 113 images where we were unable to identify individuals to species because of poor photo clarity; they were categorized as “unknown”. For those species that could be identified, we further classified them relative to gender (male or female) and age class (adult, yearling, young-of-year). Double-counts of individuals were common because certain individuals would repeatedly trigger the camera in areas of high use. We did not differentiate these individuals, other than to note that an animal seen in the same five second interval was likely the same individual.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 30 Hood 2016

Figure 2. Locations of wildlife camera installations in Beaver County, Alberta from June 2015 to August, 2015.

Table 2. Wildlife sightings captured by trail cameras from June to August 2015 in four locations within Beaver County (Figure 2). Counts are cumulative and will often contain multiple counts of the same individual(s) over time. Below the total counts, the known distribution of males, females, yearlings and young of year are in parentheses (M,F,Y,YOY). Individuals categorized as “unknown” relative to gender and age class are only included in the total count.

Camera Coyote Moose Mule Deer White-tailed Raccoon Unknown Deer Camera 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 (0, 8,0,0) Camera 2 2 183 10 261 0 0 (0,0,2,0) (23,122,7,17) (5,5,0,0) (157,8,0,89) Camera 3 219 8 0 221 1 6 (4,0,0,197) (0,4,0,0) (194,14,0,12) Camera 4 2 0 0 22 0 0 (22,0,0,0)

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 31 Hood 2016

Figure 3. Photo taken of a raccoon (Procyon lotor) on 23 August 2015 in Division 5 in Beaver County, Alberta. The camera used was a Reconyx PC900 HyperFire Professional Covert IR.

Interactive wildlife conflict map The interactive wildlife map was created from 51 images exported from ArcGIS 10.3 into PowerPoint.

The hyperlinks then allowed for various species-specific views at both the Division and County scale. The option to view all species simultaneously also exists (Figure 3). For each species indicated on the map

(excluding elk), we wrote a wildlife management plan to provide best management approaches. These plans include: Richardson’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii) (Appendix C), coyote (Canis latrans) (Appendix D), stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) (Appendix E), beaver (Castor canadensis)

(Appendix F), and deer (both white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (O. hemionus);

Appendix G).

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 32 Hood 2016

Figure 4. Map of all recorded beaver, coyote and ground squirrel complaints as derived through phone- in Service Request Forms from December 2014 to May 2015 (beavers), issuance of Poison 1080 from January 2014 to May 2015 (coyotes), and issuance of strychnine from March 2014 to July 2014 (ground squirrels). The image is one of the templates used to create the interactive map provided to the County.

To create this map, we digitized GIS layers to spatially represent 72 ground squirrel complaints (Table 3),

22 coyote complaints (Table 4), 7 skunk complaints and 21 beaver complaints. File management presented some challenges because there was no centralized County database for all wildlife complaints. Some data were from an Excel file provided by the County, some were from paper forms, some were from notebook entries by County staff, and some were from discussions with the

Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer. While analyzing these data, we were able to create Excel databases for each species that are now available to the County for continued use.

Relative to the issuance of poisons for ground squirrel and coyote control. We did find some deviations from current County policy (Tables 3 and 4). For the issuance of 2% liquid strychnine concentrate, there

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 33 Hood 2016

were some entries that failed to indicate either the property location, the number of bottles issued or both (Table 3). The same issue also occurred with the issuance of Poison 1080 for coyote control. There were also a few instances where more tablets were issued than the 6 tablets specified in the Alberta

Agriculture and Rural Development Coyote Predation Control Manual and Study Guide (Table 4). In one of these instances, another family member had already received the specified number of tablets seven days earlier for the same quarter section. The majority of issuances, however, abided by specifications outlined in the Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development Coyote Predation Control Manual and Study

Guide.

The omission of a specific category on the issuance form hindered our ability to determine whether site visits were performed to confirm coyote predation and whether recipients of poison were properly trained as per the Agricultural Pests Act. These forms are provided by the Province. Over a 16-month period, 132 Poison 1080 tablets were issued 22 times (n = 132 tablets total, n = 16 landowners, none in

Division 2), while 1,347 bottles of 2% liquid strychnine were issued over 73 incidences over 4 months (n

= 65 landowners). We do not know how many bottles or tablets were issued for those entries listed as

“N/A”.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 34 Hood 2016

Table 3. Gopher Acknowledgement of Purchase of 2% liquid strychnine concentrate from Beaver County, Alberta from 18 March 2014 to 19 July 2014 (n = 1,347 bottles over 4 months, N/A indicates that number of bottles was not provided). Data are from County records only. “Gopher” refers to Richardson’s ground squirrels and northern pocket gophers.

Date Landowner County Division Number of Type of # of Bottles Quarter Area Sections Mar 18, 2014 Landowner 17 N/A N/A N/A 12 Mar 18, 2014 Landowner 6 N/A N/A N/A 24 Apr 1, 2014 Landowner 18 Division 3 1 Crop 4 Apr 1, 2014 Landowner 19 Incomplete 1 Mixed 24 Apr 1, 2014 Landowner 17 Division 5 1 Crop 24 Apr 1, 2014 Landowner 20 Division 3 5 Mixed 24 Apr 1, 2014 Landowner 21 Division 4 2 Pasture 24 Apr 1, 2014 Landowner 6 Division 3 3 Pasture 24 Apr 1, 2014 Landowner 22 Divisions 3 & 5 5 Mixed 24 Apr 8, 2014 Landowner 23 Division 4 1 Mixed 4 Apr 8, 2014 Landowner 24 Division 3 1 Crop 24 Apr 8, 2014 Landowner 25 Divisions 1 and 3 16 Mixed 24 Apr 8, 2014 Landowner 26 Incomplete 1 Mixed 10 Apr 8, 2014 Landowner 27 Division 3 3 Mixed 12 Apr 8, 2014 Landowner 28 Division 4 3 Mixed 48 Apr 8, 2014 Landowner 29 Division 5 4 Mixed 1 Apr 15, 2014 Landowner 30 Not in County? Typo? 1 Pasture 2 Apr 15, 2014 Landowner 31 Division 4 1 Pasture 24 Apr 15, 2014 Landowner 32 Division 4 4 Mixed 24 Apr 15, 2014 Landowner 33 Division 3 3 Mixed 48 Apr 15, 2014 Landowner 34 Division 4 1 Mixed 4 Apr 15, 2014 Landowner 35 Division 3 1 Pasture 2 Apr 22, 2014 Landowner 36 Division 5 4 Mixed 5 Apr 22, 2014 Landowner 4 N/A N/A Mixed 24 Apr 22, 2014 Landowner 37 Division 3 1 Mixed 24 Apr 29, 2014 Landowner 32 Not in County? Typo? 4 Mixed 24 Apr 29, 2014 Landowner 38 Division 5 3 Mixed 24 Apr 29, 2014 Landowner 39 Division 5 8 Mixed 48 Apr 29, 2014 Landowner 40 Division 2 1 Mixed 24 Apr 29, 2014 Landowner 41 Division 4 2 Mixed 48 Apr 29, 2014 Landowner 25 Divisions 1 & 3 16 Mixed 24 Apr 29, 2014 Landowner 41 Division 3 2 Mixed 48 Apr 29, 2014 Landowner 42 Division 5 2 Mixed 48 May 1, 2014 Landowner 43 Division 3 17 N/A N/A May 1, 2014 Landowner 44 Divisions 1 & 3 24 N/A N/A May 1, 2014 Landowner 25 Divisions 1,2 & 3 25 N/A N/A

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 35 Hood 2016

Date Landowner County Division Number of Type of # of Bottles Quarter Area Sections May 6, 2014 Landowner 45 Division 1 3 Mixed 24 May 6, 2014 Landowner 46 Division 4 3 Mixed 24 May 6, 2014 Landowner 47 Division 3 14 Crop 48 May 6, 2014 Landowner 42 Division 4 1 Pasture 48 May 13, 2014 Landowner 42 Division 5 9 Mixed 48 May 13, 2014 Landowner 48 Division 3 2 Mixed 6 May 13, 2014 Landowner 49 Not in County? Typo? 1 Crop 3 May 13, 2014 Landowner 50 Division 4 1 Mixed 12 May 13, 2014 Landowner 51 Division 4 1 Crop 10 May 20, 2014 Landowner 52 Division 3 10 Crop 48 May 20, 2014 Landowner 53 Division 4 2 Crop 4 May 21, 2014 Landowner 54 Division 5 2 Mixed 6 May 27, 2014 Landowner 55 Division 3 1 Pasture 2 May 27, 2014 Landowner 56 Division 5 5 Mixed 6 May 27, 2014 Landowner 57 Division 1 8 Mixed 48 Jun 4, 2014 Landowner 58 Division 5 1 Pasture 2 Jun 10, 2014 Landowner 59 Division 1 2 Crop 1 Jun 10, 2014 Landowner 60 Division 4 1 Crop 48 Jun 11, 2014 Landowner 61 Division 1 5 Mixed 4 Jun 13, 2014 Landowner 62 Division 5 1 Crop 6 Jun 16, 2014 Landowner 63 Division 3 1 Crop 6 Jun 20, 2014 Landowner 64 Division 4 2 N/A 8 Jun 23, 2014 Landowner 65 Division 3 1 Mixed 2 Jun 25, 2014 Landowner 27 Division 3 1 N/A 6 Jun 25, 2014 Landowner 66 Divisions 4 & 5 14 N/A 19 Jun 25, 2014 Landowner 67 Division 3 1 Crop 5 Jun 30, 2014 Landowner 68 Division 3 1 Crop 6 Jun 30, 2014 Landowner 69 Division 5 1 Pasture 2 Jun 30, 2014 Landowner 70 Division 5? Incomplete Pasture 2 Jun 30, 2014 Landowner 71 Division 5 3 Mixed 24 Jul 3, 2014 Landowner 72 Division 1 1 Crop 2 Jul 4, 2014 Landowner 73 Division 1 2 Crop 24 Jul 4, 2014 Landowner 74 Division 5 2 N/A 48 Jul 4, 2014 Landowner 75 Division 5 1 Pasture 24 Jul 14, 2014 Landowner 76 Division 5 1 Mixed 2 Jul 14, 2014 Landowner 77 Division 3 1 Mixed 5 Jul 19, 2014 Landowner 16 Division 5 2 Pasture 12

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 36 Hood 2016

Table 4. Coyote complaints by Division in Beaver County, Alberta from 2 January 2014 to 4 May 2015 and issuance of Poison 1080 tablets by the County (n = 132 tablets in 16 months). Data are from County records only.

Date Issued Landowner County Number of # 1080 Tablets Issued Nature of Complaint Division Quarter (red = exceeds policy) Sections Jan 2, 2014 Landowner 1 Division 5 1 5 NA Feb 3, 2014 Landowner 2 Division 3 1 6 Coyote predation of cattle Mar 10, 2014 Landowner 3 Division 5 1 6 Coyote predation of cattle Mar 17, 2014 Landowner 3 Division 5 1 (same 12 Coyote predation of cattle (spouse of location as previous) previous) Apr 4, 2014 Landowner 4 Division 4 1 6 Coyote predation of cattle Jul 22, 2014 Landowner 5 Division 2 Rural None requested Coyotes in area, have been residential trying to scare away. Concern due to chickens in yard Jul 31, 2014 Landowner 6 Division 3 1 6 Coyote predation of cattle Aug 8, 2014 Landowner 7 Division 4 1 6 Coyote predation of poultry Aug 13, 2014 Landowner 8 Division 1 1 6 Coyote predation of poultry Aug 25, 2014 Landowner 9 Division 3 1 Not available Coyote predation of cattle Sep 26, 2014 Landowner 10 Division 4 1 6 Coyote predation of poultry Oct 2, 2014 Landowner 11 Division 5 1 6 Coyote predation of sheep Nov 5, 2014 Landowner 12 Not Unknown None requested Coyotes invading grain available bags and eating canola Nov 7, 2014 Landowner 10 Division 4 1 6 Coyote predation of poultry Dec 8, 2014 Landowner 13 Division 4 1 6 Coyote predation of cattle Dec 9, 2014 Landowner 2 Division 3 1 6 Coyote predation of cattle Dec 12, 2014 Landowner 14 Division 4 1 6 Coyote predation of other Jan 6, 2015 Landowner 2 Division 3 1 6 Coyote predation of cattle Jan 30, 2015 Landowner 15 Divisions 4 2 19 Coyote predation of cattle & 5 Apr 7, 2015 Landowner 3 Division 5 1 12 Coyote predation of cattle May 4, 2015 Landowner 16 Division 4 4 6 Coyote predation of cattle NA Landowner 7 Division 4 1 None requested Chicken and coyote problem

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 37 Hood 2016

There were seven skunk trap agreements completed from 4 March 2013 to 26 May 2015, with three from Division 1, two from Division 3, and two from Division 4.

3.2. HUMAN-BEAVER CONFLICTS

Field mapping From 24 May to July 21 2015, the research team spent approximately 56 hours mapping problem sites within Beaver County. Following suggestions of the Landflood/Wildlife Control areas, key areas of focus included Hastings Creek, Norris Creek, and Katchemut Creek (Appendix B).

Using the 2015 aerial photos, we were able to use the GIS to increase the number of beaver lodges in the Cooking Lake Moraine to 446 beaver lodges (active and inactive). These lodges are only within the part of the County in the moraine to complement previous research in this area. From these lodges we were able to determine “hot spots” of beaver densities (Figure 5). Many of the areas with the highest densities of lodges were near rural-residential subdivision and away from agricultural lands.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 38 Hood 2016

Figure 5. Point density (#lodges/km2) of beaver lodges identified through orthophoto analysis in the region of Beaver County within the Cooking Lake Moraine (Beaver Hills). Data used in Hood and Yarmey (2015) were supplemented through on-screen digitizing from the 2015 orthophotos, with some sites confirmed through field mapping. Areas within provincial jurisdiction (i.e., protected areas) were not included in the analysis.

Pond levellers From May to August 2015, we installed four pond-levelling devices in Beaver County, which complemented the previous nine devices installed from May to August 2014 (Figure 6). As of June 2016,

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 39 Hood 2016

all of the pond levellers are in good working order (Table 12; Appendix H). In late May 2016, beavers tried to block outflow pipes on three of the pond levellers after a heavy period of rain, but they were easily cleared in less than five minutes by our field crew.

Figure 6. Locations of pond leveller installations in Beaver County, Alberta from June 2014 to August, 2015.

From June 2015 to August 2015, the total time spent installing four pond levellers was just over 30 hours. This time included site preparation and equipment preparation. Fewer pond levellers were installed in 2015 because of the additional scope of our research program. We had hoped to install five pond levellers in 2015; however, it was difficult to obtain landowner permissions and some candidate sites had been drained by landowners or the County prior to our proposed installation dates. Our focus was directed exclusively to non-culvert sites on private lands, which made access agreements more

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 40 Hood 2016

difficult, especially once crops were in the fields. We checked all sites at the end of August to ensure they were still working, which they were. Additional checks were conducted in May and June 2016; the results are included in this report (Table 12; Appendix H).

Cost-benefit analysis For the 13 pond-leveller sites installed over two years (2014 and 2015), we determined there was a present value (PV) net benefit of $227,590.19. Excluding the wetland valuation costs in a sensitivity analysis, we determined there was still a PV net benefit of $34,391.96. These values do not include

County expenses for trapping costs ($67 852.78 from June to December, 2015) because the total value could not be accurately broken down to site-specific averages. We also lacked full cost-accounting for the use of more expensive mechanical equipment (e.g., backhoes). In addition, the County costs were derived from four complete sites and then averaged over the 13 sites because of a lack of availability of full cost-accounting for maintenance and repair by the County. A full break-down of the cost-benefit analysis is presented below.

Install expenses

Excluding additional costs (travel, mileage, and monitoring), the minimum expense for a pond-leveller installation was $756.33 (Install #5, WPT 98, Install Date: July 30, 2014), and the maximum cost for an installation was $1 605.55 (Install #6, WPT 100, ‘Big Bertha’, 120ft of pipe, Install Date: August 27, 2014).

The average installation cost, including site and material preparation and travel, was $1 062.07, while the median installation cost was $1,024.85. The total cost for the installation of all 13 pond levellers over two years was $13 806.90 (Table 5). These costs do not include ongoing monitoring and maintenance over the two years.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 41 Hood 2016

Table 5. Summary of average costs by year (2014, 2015) for the installation of pond levellers at problem beaver sites in Beaver County, Alberta. These costs included materials, on-site labour, and transportation to the install location. All but two sites in 2014 (n = 9) were at culvert sites, while all sites in 2015 (n = 4) were on private land containing stream systems.

Item Cost 2014 Number of Sites: 9 2014 Total Install Cost: $9,539.21 2014 Average Cost: $1,059.91

2015 Number of Sites: 4 2015 Total Install Cost: $4,267.69 2015 Average Cost: $1,066.92

Total Number of Sites: 13 Total Cost: $13,806.90 Average Total Cost: $1,062.07

Additional (monitoring and maintenance) costs

Site specific monitoring and maintenance costs (Table 6) included all travel time (including for site evaluation and preparation), mileage and maintenance costs to install pond-levelling devices at problem areas where beaver activities were causing flooding or where water levels were threatening infrastructure in Beaver County.

Table 6. Summary of additional costs by year (2014, 2015) for the monitoring and maintenance of pond levellers at problem beaver sites in Beaver County, Alberta. All but two sites in 2014 (n = 9) were at culvert sites, while all sites in 2015 (n = 4) were on private land containing stream systems.

Item Number and Cost Number of Sites 13

2014 Additional Costs $2,264.94 2014 Average Additional Costs $174.23

2015 Additional Costs $1,780.48 2015 Average Additional Costs $136.96

Total Additional Costs $4,045.42 Total Average Additional Costs $311.19

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 42 Hood 2016

Total costs (install and additional costs)

The total combined cost for the installation and monitoring/maintenance of pond-levelling devices

resulted in a minimum cost of $1,081.47 (Install #5, WPT 98, Install Date: July 30, 2014), a maximum cost

of $1,807.27 (Install #6, WPT 100, ‘Big Bertha’, 120ft of pipe, Install Date: August 27, 2014), and an

average cost of $1 373.26. For both years combined, the total cost of pond-levelling devices was

$17,852.35.

Mitigated County expenses

We were only able to obtain complete maintenance costs for four sites where data were available from

Beaver County staff. The following values are estimated using the 2014 yearly expenses for the 2015

sites (Table 7).

Table 7. Estimated expenses for the mitigated County expenses (based on 2014 costs) for the four sites where pond levellers were installed in 2015 to managed flooding by beavers on private lands in Beaver County, Alberta.

Install #10 Install # 11 Install #12 Install #13 Site (WPT 144) (WPT 140) (WPT 177) (WPT 179) Total Labour Costs $1,787.35 $1,692.32 $426.50 $373.82 Total Equipment Costs $2,722.42 $1,956.92 $390.00 $450.00 Total Costs $4,509.77 $3,649.24 $816.50 $823.82

We then derived an estimated total cost for all installations over both years (2014 and 2015) of

$31,847.82 (Table 8). These data represent the best estimates we could provide given the deficiencies in

the County data sets. It should be noted that the sites in 2014 were mainly culvert sites, while the sites

in 2015 were harder to access and required private landowner permissions.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 43 Hood 2016

Table 8. Estimated total costs for Beaver County for the 2014 and 2015 sites where pond levellers were then installed (n = 13). Costs are averaged across all sites based on the four sites for which there were adequate data received from Beaver County staff.

Item Cost Sum of Total Costs $9,799.33 Number of Sites 4 Average Cost per Site $2,449.83

Number of 2014 Sites 9 Estimated 2014 Site Cost $22,048.49

Number of 2015 Sites 4 2015 Site Cost $9,799.33

Total Number of Sites: 13 Estimated Total Cost: $31,847.82

Wetland valuation

The site-specific wetland valuation determined by area (ha) and in-lieu fee rate for most sites within

Beaver County was $19,388. All but one site were valued at $19,388 per ha; the remaining site (Install#9,

WPT 102) was valued at $18,619 per ha, as per site-specific 2015 Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive

(Government of Alberta 2015). Total valuation for wetland replacement was $195,903.06 (Table 9)

Table 9. Relative Wetland Value Assessment Unit for each pond leveller location (n = 13) as determined by the 2015 Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive. In-lieu fee rates are per hectare relative to their location in the province. Wetland areas were derived in a Geographic Information System from 2007 and 2010 orthophotos of Beaver County.

Item Cost Total 2014 Valuation: $72,117.02 Number of Sites: 9 Average Value per Site: $8,013.00

Total 2015 Valuation: $123,786.04 Number of Sites: 13 Average Value per Site: $9,522.00

Total Valuation: $195,903.06

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 44 Hood 2016

Present value net benefit

The present value net benefit for the cost-benefit analysis provides the net benefit in using pond levellers over traditional management methods (Table 10). With wetland valuation included, and the monetary omissions mentioned in Section 2.3 of this report, the present value net benefit was

$227,590.19. The social discount rate for Alberta is currently 3%, which was then applied to the 2014 install sites (n = 9) and the 2015 sites (n = 4).

Table 10. Full cost-benefit analysis inputs and the resultant present value (PV) benefit for installing pond-levelling devices compared to traditional methods for beaver management used by Beaver County, Alberta. We used the following formula in our calculations: PV = CV/(1+SDR)year. County expenses do not include trapping costs ($67 852.78 from June to December, 2015 because the total value could not be accurately broken down to site specific averages). They also do not contain full- cost accounting for all mechanical interventions (e.g., backhoes) at the sites.

Cost-benefit Analysis 2014 2015 Cost Years: 0 1 CV Install Expenses $9,539.21 $4,267.69 $13,806.90 PV Install Expenses $9,539.21 $4,143.39 $13,682.60 CV Monitoring and Maintenance Costs $2,264.94 $1,780.48 $4,045.42 PV Monitoring and Maintenance Costs $2,264.94 $1,728.62 $3,993.56

PV Cumulative Costs $11,804.15 $5,872.01 $17,676.16

CV Mitigated County Expenses $22,048.49 $31,847.82 $53,896.32 CV Wetland Valuation $72,117.02 $123,786.04 $195,903.06 CV Cumulative Benefits $94,165.51 $155,633.86 $249,799.38

PV Cumulative Benefits $94,165.51 $151,100.84 $245,266.35

PV Net Benefits $82,361.36 $145,228.83 $227,590.19

Sensitivity analysis

The present value net benefit for the sensitivity analysis (which excludes wetland valuation) was

$34,391.96 (Table 11). As above, the social discount rate used was 3%, which was applied to the 2014 install sites (n = 9) and the 2015 sites (n = 4).

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 45 Hood 2016

Table 11. Sensitivity analysis inputs and the resultant present value (PV) benefit for installing pond- levelling devices compared to traditional methods for beaver management used by Beaver County, Alberta. We used the following formula in our calculations: PV = CV/(1+SDR)year. County expenses do not include trapping costs ($67 852.78 from June to December, 2015 because the total value could not be accurately broken down to site specific averages). They also do not contain full-cost accounting for all mechanical interventions (e.g., backhoes) at the sites.

Cost, Benefit Analysis 2014 2015 Costs Years: 0 1 CV Install Expenses $9,539.21 $4,267.69 $13,806.90 PV Install Expenses $9,539.21 $4,143.39 $13,682.60 CV Monitoring and Maintenance Costs $2,264.94 $1,780.48 $4,045.42 PV Monitoring and Maintenance Costs $2,264.94 $1,728.62 $3,993.56

PV Cumulative Costs $11,804.15 $5,872.01 $17,676.16

CV Mitigated County Expenses $22,048.49 $31,847.82 $53,896.32 PV Mitigated County Expenses $22,048.49 $30,920.22 $52,968.71

PV Cumulative Benefits $22,048.49 $30,019.63 $52,068.12

PV Net Benefits $10,244.34 $24,147.62 $34,391.96

Although maintenance needs of the pond levellers was similar (Table 12), one pond leveller (Install #7,

WPT 100b) was 37 metres long, which is 25 metres longer than the standard pond leveller (Table 13;

Appendix H). Once installed, the estimated annual monitoring cost per site was $128.31. Start-up costs were estimated to be $2,686.58 for various equipment (tools, waders, dry suit) and training. Much of this expense was provided as in-kind support from the University of Alberta, Augustana Campus and through the acquisition of equipment from other research grants for a similar project in the Cooking

Lake/Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area. The cost-benefit analysis is ongoing as we obtain additional expense data from the County to refine the analysis. All sites were visited in the spring of 2016 and are in good working order (Table 12).

Efficacy of previous and new pond levellers Pond levellers from 2014 were checked in May 2015, and were all in working order. Following an additional check of all 13 pond levellers in May and June 2016, we found that only three pond levellers

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 46 Hood 2016

had been very recently blocked by beavers at the outfall end following a week of intense rainfall (Table

12). The three devices were easily cleared; all other devices (n = 10) were working without any

interference by beavers.

Table 12. Current condition (June 2016) of all pond levellers installed from June 2014 to August 2015. Site numbers correspond to those on Figure 4 which are derived from GPS waypoints (WPT). Waypoint numbers were used exclusively in Hood and Yarmey (2015).

Site WPT Easting Northing Feature Date Date last Condition installed checked Install 1 36 377994 5912409 Culvert 18/06/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 2 63 376503 5912275 Culvert 20/06/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 3 67 376405 5912290 Dam 15/07/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 4 76 376359 5911552 Dam 17/07/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 5 98 380215 5923630 Dam 30/07/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 6 100 389931 5919496 Culvert 27/08/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 7 100 389931 5919496 Culvert 27/08/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 8 101 388836 5920862 Culvert 20/08/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 9 102 423198 5889013 Culvert 15/08/14 01/06/16 Device is working and free of debris Install 10 144 385775 5915190 Dam 11/06/15 5/24/16 Water is below level of device. Some sticks and mud in outflow. Monitor. Install 11 140 393209 5933246 Dam 26/06/15 5/24/16 Water is below level of device. Outflow is clear. Install 12 177 378986 5912579 Dam 04/08/15 5/24/16 Water is below level of device. Outflow is clear. Install 13 179 385107 5918226 Dam 07/08/15 5/24/16 Water level has not changed. Beavers have created new channels through the dam so water can flow freely around the device.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 47 Hood 2016

Table 13. Costs for installation of pond levelling devices in Beaver County from June 2014 to August 2015. Site numbers correspond to those on Figure 4 which are derived from GPS waypoints. For the County costs, the values are only for what work had been completed to 31 August 2015. Additional data are to be determined.

Site WPT Install Date Supplies Site/ Installation Total Management Costs for (time & km) Material 2014/2015 Prior to Prep. Installs* Install 1 36 18 June 2014 $330.87 $111.50 $441.00 $883.37 $1,249.99 (4 hrs/70 km) Install 2 63 20 June 2014 $550.49 $241.00 $381.00 $1,172.49 $517.53 (10.5 hrs/125 kms) Install 3 67 15 July 2014 $569.37 $122.50 $322.00 $1,013.87 $517.53 (5 hrs/125 kms) Install 4 76 17 July 2014 $550.49 $151.95 $278.90 $981.34 $105.20* (6.75 hrs/124 kms) Install 5 98 30 July 2014 $301.73 $80.50 $374.10 $756.33 $1,166.23 (3.5 hrs/70 kms) Install 6 100a 27 August 2014 $550.49 $126.79 $298.20 $975.48 TBD (6.5 hrs/54.3 kms) Install 7 100b 27 August 2014 $1,229. $126.79 $249.75 $1,605.55 TBD (6.5 hrs/54.3 kms) 01 Install 8 101 20 August 2014 $569.91 $133.95 $369.30 $1,073.16 TBD (6.75 hrs/64 kms) Install 9 102 15 August 2014 $588.25 $147.30 $342.09 $1,077.64 TBD (7.5 hrs/66 kms) Install 10 144 11 June 2015 $569.37 $225.50 $401.40 $1,196.27 (10 hrs/ 185 kms) Install 11 140 26 June 2015 $569.37 $114.33 $341.15 $1,024.85 (5.49 hrs/70 kms) Install 12 177 4 August 2015 $550.49 $180.85 $328.65 $1,059.99 (7.25 hrs/192kms) Install 13 179 7 August 2015 $550.49 $167.90 $268.20 $986.59 (7.75 hrs/120.5 kms) Total $13,806.93 TBD *Costs for the County are only to 31 August 2015 for the 2015 fiscal year and are not annual estimates. The sites were identified as problem sites requiring multiple visits each year. Data for the site of Install #4 were incomplete and not used to extrapolate to other sites.

3.3. BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING

During the summers of 2014 and 2015, we collected 10 to 20 jars of aquatic invertebrate samples at

each of the 13 sites prior to the installation of the pond levellers. We then replicated the sampling at the

same sites exactly one year following their installation date. To date, we have collected 207 samples of

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 48 Hood 2016

aquatic macroinvertebrates from the 13 ponds. Some processing of these samples is still in progress at the University of Alberta’s Augustana Campus. However, in 2014 and 2015 over 6,600 individuals from

34 taxa have already been identified (Table 14). The remaining samples for 2014 and 2015 continue to be analyzed at Red Deer College (by Ms. Charity Briere). Ms. Briere has found the same species as those on Table 14 for the 2014 samples, and has identified an additional three taxa from the 2015 samples:

Lepidoptera (Crambidae), Trichoptera (Limnephilidae) and Hydrozoa. In all cases, all individuals have been identified to their lowest taxonomic level.

Given ongoing sample identification, comparative analyses are not currently possible. A preliminary analysis, however, reveals that Daphnia (water fleas) are the most numerous taxon, with Gammaridae

(scuds) and Ostracoda (seed shrimp) being the next most numerous taxa. We found three pollution sensitive taxa – Brachycentridae (caddisflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Ephemeroptera (mayflies) – at three of the sites so far, which indicates areas of high water quality. Additionally, we found Gammaridae

(scuds) and dragonfly and damselfly larvae (Odonata: Libellulidae and Coenagrionidae, respectively) in several samples, which represent taxa that are moderately tolerant of pollution (Table 14).

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 49 Hood 2016

Table 14. Number of aquatic macroinvertebrate by taxa identified in six ponds in Beaver County, Alberta prior to installation of pond levelling devices from June to August, 2014. Brackets indicate number of samples analyzed by August 2015. WPT 94 is a site without an installation that can act as a control. Taxa Common name Control Install 3 Install Install 5 Install 8 Install 9 Total WPT 94 WPT 67 4 WPT 100 WPT 101 WPT 102 (2) (10) WPT 76 (2) (2) (1) (1) Arrenuridae water mite 2 2 1 5 Brachycentridae caddisfly 1 1 Caenidae small squaregill mayfly 9 1 1 11 Calanoida copepod 1 1 Ceratopogonidae biting midges 1 1 Chaoboridae phantom midges 1 108 11 31 52 193 Chironomidae nonbiting midges 12 360 6 378 Coenagrionidae damselflies 14 8 2 24 Coleoptera beetles 1 1 Conchostraca clam shrimp 53 3 56 Corixidae water boatmen 10 8 1 19 Cyclopodia cyclopods 58 105 20 183 Daphnia waterflea 23 2196 5 1 1778 4003 Dytiscidae predaceous diving beetle 3 17 20 Ephemeroptera mayflies 2 3 5 Eylaidae water mites 5 5 Gammaridae scuds 28 728 112 20 2 890 Gerridae water striders 5 1 6 Haliplidae crawling water beetles 2 2 1 2 7 Hebridae velvet water bug 5 5 Hydrachnidae water mite 23 1 24 Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle 3 3 Isotomidae springtail 1 1 2 Libellulidae skimmers 9 9 Lymnaeidae pond snail 1 1 2 1 5 Naididae clitellate oligochaete 3 9 2 2 16 worms Notonectidae backswimmer 1 4 5 Ostracoda seed shrimp 17 548 5 4 7 4 585 Physidae bladder snail 11 1 12 Planorbidae ramshorn snail 9 108 1 1 119 Plecoptera stoneflies 3 3 Tipulidae large crane fly 1 1 2 Unknown TBD 1 8 1 10 Veliidae riffle bugs 2 1 3 Total 190 4328 153 59 1884 8 6612

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 50 Hood 2016

3.4. ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES

Over the past year, my students and I have presented eight presentations relative to this project in part or in entirety (Table 15). Reception to this research has been very positive, particularly relative to the efficacy and cost-benefits of the pond levellers for beaver management.

Table 15. Presentations and other coverage for the project.

Date Venue Presentation Title Presenter(s) Type April 2, 2016 Undergraduate Research Oral Cost or benefit? Using Gould, K., G.A. in Science Conference of presentation pond levellers to mitigate Hood and V. Alberta. Edmonton, AB human-beaver conflicts Manaloor April 2, 2016 Undergraduate Research Keynote Connecting the ponds: G.A. Hood in Science Conference of address insights into ecological Alberta. Edmonton, AB relationships through undergraduate research. Undergraduate Research in Science Conference of Alberta. Edmonton, AB March 5, 2016 Alberta Chapter of the Oral The old, the new, and the G.A. Hood Wildlife Society 26th presentation alternative: Managing Annual Conference. human-wildlife conflicts Drumheller, AB in rural municipalities December 3, Association of Alberta Invited Mitigating human-wildlife G.A. Hood 2016 Agricultural Fieldmen In- presentation conflicts in rural Service Training. municipalities Edmonton, AB January 28, Beaver Management Invited Wetland plumbing: Are G.A. Hood 2016 Workshop. presentation pond levellers an Kouchibouguac National effective tool to counter Park, Remote flooding by beavers? Presentation for New Brunswick October 18, The Wildlife Society Oral Beavers as a watershed E.R. Specht and 2016 Annual Conference. presentation management tool: G.A. Hood Winnipeg, MA articulating Alberta’s regulatory context September 14, 7th International Beaver Invited Beavers as an ecological G.A. Hood 2016 Symposium. Voronezh, presentation restoration tool: a Russia cautionary tale July 26, 2016 Vth International Wildlife Invited A penny saved? A cost- G.A. Hood Management Congress, presentation benefit analysis of Sapporo, Japan. alternative mitigations for human-beaver conflict

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 51 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 52 Hood 2016

4. DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to assess human-wildlife interactions as they relate to the efficacy of current management and policy approaches to common human-wildlife conflicts within natural and developed sites in Beaver County, Alberta. Throughout the County, the municipality takes a central role in the mitigation and management of human-wildlife interactions on both agricultural lands and in rural residential subdivisions. As in other areas around the world, human-wildlife interactions in agricultural settings can lead to depredation of livestock and crops (McManus et al. 2015), which can be costly to both agricultural producers and the government (Conner et al. 2008, McManus et al. 2015). Although many of these losses can be quantified, it is often difficult to assess fully the exact costs of agricultural losses (Delibes-Mateos et al. 2011, McManus et al. 2015). It is also important to understand ecological costs when developing management interventions. Ideally, management actions would only target problem individuals in a manner that persists with little to no secondary mortality on other individuals or species (Jacob et al. 2002, McMannus et al. 2015). These actions should also allow for long-term conservation of natural resources (Bergstrom et al. 2013). In many cases, some species of greatest concern in Alberta (e.g., fossorial mammals and beavers) also play critical roles as keystone species

(Delibes-Mateos et al. 2011) and ecosystem engineers (Rosell et al. 2005, Hood and Larson 2015).

In addressing human-wildlife interactions, it is important to mitigate the role of human actions in conflict areas (Fall and Jackson 2002). Within Beaver County, managing wildlife conflicts can take lethal and non-lethal forms, although lethal management of problem wildlife by landowners and government personnel is more common (Conover 2001, McMannus et al. 2015). Some studies, however, suggest that individual target animals can be missed and other non-target species can be killed unintentionally

(Bergstrom et al. 2013). Also, there is an ongoing time commitment and expense required as vacated habitats become repopulated by new individuals (Conover 2001, Berger 2006, McMannus et al. 2015).

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 53 Hood 2016

Although more research is required, in some cases, some studies indicate that non-lethal methods can prove to be more cost-effective (see McMannus et al. 2015).

4.1. HUMAN-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS

The Beaver County Policy: Level of Service – Pest Control, the County states that “For all pests, Beaver

County is committed to providing education on an integrated pest management strategy.” Our final report, and its associated species-specific management plans in Appendices C to G, provide the background data and related management approaches to present both lethal and non-lethal options to

County staff and residents. The dedication to “providing education” allows the County an opportunity to integrate the best science into its management strategies.

During the course of this research, we determined through County records that the main approach used to resolve human-wildlife conflicts was through lethal management. When quantifying the County complaint records for coyotes and Richardson’s ground squirrels, Poison 1080 tablets and 2% liquid strychnine were used almost exclusively. There are likely other methods employed by landowners (e.g., trapping and shooting), but these methods would be difficult to quantify without documentation.

County policies provide various lethal and some non-lethal options for the management of County- specific species. These policies, however, focus mainly on lethal methods that require County administration and oversight (e.g., Poison 1080 and 2% liquid strychnine).

The Excel spreadsheets provided to the County as electronic supplements with this report should aid the

County in complaint management and tracking so all records can be maintained in an easily accessible format. The spreadsheets can also be used to update the GIS layers used in the interactive map. Both strychnine and Poison 1080 have legal restrictions relative to their use, with strychnine only recently being allowed for agricultural use after a 1-year emergency order was issued in 2008 and subsequent full reinstatement followed in 2012. Because of the sensitivities around these two poisons, an easily

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 54 Hood 2016

accessible database based on an environmental management/monitoring system (EMS) is advisable.

Ideally, an EMS would be constructed to allow for an automatic update of the GIS layer whenever a new entry is made to the database. This approach would allow for easier internal or external audits of environmental management activities within the County.

4.2. HUMAN-BEAVER CONFLICTS

Where beavers are common, less common beaver management approaches (e.g., pond levellers) have resulted in cost-effective and long-term solutions for mitigating flooding (Simon 2006). Such present value (PV) benefits were realized over a two-year period at 13 install sites in Beaver County. Even though there were gaps in the cost-accounting for the County, there was still a net benefit by using pond levellers. This benefit was also evident after a Sensitivity Analysis, where we excluded wetland valuation and various mechanical costs (e.g., County backhoe time).

A similar study in the Cooking Lake/Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area immediately adjacent to Beaver

County (Hood and Manaloor, In Prep), resulted in a $2,680,641 PV net benefit for 13 sites over three years, and a $81,519 net benefit when a Sensitivity Analysis was conducted that excluded the willingness to pay input from the full model. These differences in net benefits for the County versus the park were surprising given that the County sites are more likely to involve more mechanical intervention on a more regular basis, given the value of the built infrastructure. With additional data from the

County, the initial net benefits predicted by the cost-benefit analysis will likely increase. Economist Dr.

Varghese Manaloor (University of Alberta, Augustana) and I will be conducting additional work on the cost-benefit analysis over the next year.

Despite the important ecological role that beavers play (Hood and Bayley 2008, Hood and Larson 2014), negative interactions with beavers can reduce the tolerance of the species by people (Siemer et al.

2013) and increase support for lethal management (Jonker et al. 2009). To help mitigate this conflict,

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 55 Hood 2016

pond-levelling devices have been successful in reducing flooding in a cost-effective manner (Boyles and

Savitzky 2008), which then helps reduce wetland loss due to draining of ponds in areas where wetland loss is already problematic (Schick 1972, Schindler and Donahue 2006). Other than some routine maintenance of three of the pond levellers in 2016 to clear a bit of material from outflow pipe, all thirteen pond levellers in the County have required very little, if no, maintenance. Employing adaptive management approaches to mitigate conflicts with wildlife can result in financial savings and reduced tensions among residents who are otherwise negatively impacted by beaver activities.

4.3. BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING

Many studies have determined that beaver ponds support high levels of biodiversity for birds, amphibians and invertebrates (Rosell et al. 2005, Bromley and Hood 2013, Anderson et al. 2014, Hood and Larson 2014). Taxa that show relatively predictable sensitivity to changes in water levels and quality include many of the aquatic macroinvertebrates (France 1997, Hood and Larson 2014). Changes in biodiversity and taxa composition are also noted in areas of varying water levels, such as in ponds affected by drought (Hood and Larson 2014). Sampling prior to all installations of the pond levellers, and then one year post-installation, allowed for a pre- and post-comparison of these sites. Due to the number of sites and regular management of many other sites by the County and private landowners, it was difficult to establish control sites within the study area. Once we have completed taxa identification for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 samples, we can use year, pre/post condition, habitat type (e.g., culvert, stream), and basic water chemistry as predictor variables in our statistical analyses.

Although data processing and analysis of the invertebrate samples are ongoing, preliminary results indicate that many waterbodies in this part of the County can support taxa that require unpolluted aquatic environments. Using existing data (Table 14), the average number of individual invertebrates per

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 56 Hood 2016

sample is 347 (Daphnia dramatically increased this value). With approximately 287 samples remaining, an additional 105,425 individuals could be added to this analysis (for a total of 112,037 individuals).

Only a small increase in the number of taxa is expected, with three additional taxa found since our initial samples were identified. We are confident that these data will allow us to provide an assessment of the state of the waterbodies in the northwestern part of the County. We can then evaluate the association between pond leveller installations and various measures of aquatic biodiversity. Additionally, these data could be used by the County for comparisons for other studies into water quality in over time.

4.4. ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES

The eight research presentations – provincially, nationally, and internationally – have increased the profile of Beaver County in various research circles. Unlike 2014, there was much less coverage by the popular media, which had allowed the County and the research team to reach the public and describe various management activities in the County. In cases where public support enhances project implementation, such as with wildfire management (Zaksek and Arvai 2004), two-way communication between resource managers and the public has been essential (Peters 2013). In 2014, extensive communication strategies employed by the County (e.g., newspapers, websites, YouTube, radio, and public events) were very helpful in facilitating the installation of pond levellers both on public and private lands. In 2015, there were some issues with assumed land access agreements that hindered some progress by the research team in the installation of pond levellers. We had planned to install five devices over the summer, but were only able to find four sites where landowners were willing to accept installations on their land. The landowners who did allow access, were positive and supportive of the project.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 57 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 58 Hood 2016

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The past year expanded on the research program of 2014. We increased its scope to address human- wildlife conflict and wildlife management across the County. Access to County records was essential for developing datasets and visual representations (interactive map) of the application and breadth of human-wildlife interactions in Beaver County. In particular, we were able to map and quantify the application of Poison 1080 and 2% liquid strychnine in the County, as well as summarize the legal and policy framework for the issuance of these products. A key recommendation is for the County to establish some form of environmental monitoring system that facilitates consistent tracking of the control, issuance and application of these poisons. One area of concern is that the current records do not indicate whether recipients have “been properly instructed as to the proper safe handling of the bait material”, and that the release form provided is signed as per Beaver County policy. In addition, we could not find any indication whether livestock depredation complaints were investigated on the ground and an actual identification of predator species was confirmed by trained inspectors prior to the issuance of Poison 1080 for coyote control, as per County policy.

Relative to beaver management, we were able to continue and advance the beaver-specific research we began in 2014. Field mapping and GIS databases provided insights into existing and potential conflict areas relative to flooding by beavers within the western-most reaches of the County, and wildlife conflict sites throughout the County. Continued development and maintenance of these databases will allow for ongoing management of problem sites and provide additional tools to aid development decisions in future.

The installation and cost-accounting of the pond levellers, coupled with traditional maintenance costs, allowed for a full cost-benefit analysis to be developed. Our results determined that the pond levellers have been effective over the first two years, but more detailed cost-accounting from the County will

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 59 Hood 2016

provide greater clarity to the full present value benefits. With similar research in the Cooking

Lake/Blackfoot Provincial Recreation Area, we determined that net benefits increase in value over time as required management interventions decrease at each site.

Relative to biodiversity surveys, sites with pond levellers can now serve as ongoing monitoring sites for comparative studies to assess the ecological efficacy of the use of pond levellers for flood mitigation. In future, these sites can be compared to sites where traditional beaver management is employed (e.g., regular dewatering following flooding by beavers) and those ponds that do not receive any management actions. Other taxa, such as riparian plants, could also be added to biodiversity assessments, but this approach is not anticipated at this time.

Finally, conference and workshop presentations about this research have been positively received at various venues. In particular, the use of pond-levellers to mitigate flooding by beavers has generated many questions by other levels of government (including municipalities) and non-governmental organizations. This year, there was very positive response to the creation of the interactive wildlife map.

Continued communication, as a central aspect of science-based decision making, is an important element of success when advancing new management approaches. Beaver County’s initiative in supporting this research is forefront in all of our presentations and has been positively received by numerous audiences.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 60 Hood 2016

6. LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, N.L., C.A. Paszkowski and G.A. Hood. 2015. Linking aquatic and terrestrial environments: Can

beaver canals serve as movement corridors for pond-breeding amphibians? Animal

Conservation 18(3): 287–294.

Berger K.M. 2006. Carnivore–livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic

correlates on the sheep industry. Conservation Biology, 20, 751–761.

Bergstrom B.J., L.C. Arias, A.D. Davidson, A.W. Ferguson, L.A. Randa and S.R. Sheffield. 2013. License to

kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function.

Conservation Letters 7(2): 131–142.

Boyles S.L. and B.A. Savitzky. 2008. An analysis of the efficacy and comparative costs of using flow

devices to resolve conflicts with North American beavers along roadways in the coastal plain of

Virginia. Proceedings 23rd Vertebrate Pest Conference 23: 47–52.

Bromley C.K. and G.A. Hood. 2013. Beaver (Castor canadensis) facilitate early access by Canada geese

(Branta canadensis) to nesting habitat and open water in Canada’s boreal wetlands. Mammalian

Biology 78: 73–77.

Brown D.J., W.A. Hubert and S.H. Anderson. 1996. Beaver ponds create wetland habitat for birds in

mountains of southeastern Wyoming. Wetlands 16: 127–133.

Bruggers R.L., R. Owens and T. Hoffman. 2002. Wildlife damage management research needs:

perceptions of scientists, wildlife managers, and stakeholders of the USDA/Wildlife Services

program. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation. 49: 213–223.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 61 Hood 2016

Cardinale B.J., J.E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D.U. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G.M. Mace, D.

Tilman, D.A. Wardle, A.P. Kinzig, G.C. Daily, M. Loreau, J.B. Grace, A. Larigauderie, D.S. Srivastava

and S. Naeem. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59–67.

Conner M.M., M.R. Ebinger and F.F Knowlton. 2008. Evaluating coyote management strategies using a

spatially explicit, individual based, socially structured population model. Ecological Modelling,

219, 234–247.

Conover M. 2001. Effect of hunting and trapping on wildlife damage. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29, 521–

532.

Delibes-Mateos M., A.T. Smith, C.N. Slobodchikoff and J.E. Swenson. 2011. The paradox of keystone

species persecuted as pests: a call for the conservation of abundant small mammals in their

native range. Biological Conservation 144: 1335–1346.

Fall W.F. and W.B. Jackson. 2002. The tools and techniques of wildlife damage management – changing

needs: an introduction. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation. 49: 87–91.

Field B.C. and N. Olewiler. 2005. Environmental Economics, 2nd Canadian edition, McGraw, Hill Ryerson,

Toronto, ON.

France R.L. 1997. The importance of beaver lodges in structuring littoral communities in boreal

headwater lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 75: 1009–1013.

Gibbs J.P. 2000. Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 14(1): 314–317.

Government of Alberta. 2015. Alberta Wetland Mitigation Directive. Water Policy Branch, Alberta

Environment and Parks. Edmonton, Alberta

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 62 Hood 2016

Hood G.A., S.E. Bayley and W. Olson. 2007. Effects of prescribed fire on habitat of beaver (Castor

canadensis) in Elk Island National Park, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 239: 200–209.

Hood G.A. and S.E. Bayley. 2008. Beaver (Castor canadensis) mitigate the effects of climate on the area

of open water in boreal wetlands in western Canada. Biological Conservation 141: 556–557.

Hood G.A. and D.G. Larson. 2014. Beaver-created habitat heterogeneity influences aquatic invertebrate

assemblages in boreal Canada. Wetlands 34: 19 – 29.

Hood, G.A. and D.G. Larson. 2015. Ecological engineering and aquatic connectivity: a new perspective

from beaver-modified wetlands. Freshwater Biology. 60: 198–208.

Hood G.A. and N. Yarmey. 2015. Mitigating Human-Beaver Conflicts through Adaptive Management.

Unpublished Report for Beaver County. Camrose (AB): pp. 70

Jacob J., Ylönen, J.A. Perry, and G.R. Singleton. Who eats first? Uptake of pellet bait by target and non-

target species. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 49: 121–124.

Jensen P.G., P.D. Curtis, M.E. Lehnert and D.L. Hamelin. 2001. Habitat and structural factors influencing

beaver interference with highway culverts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 654, 664.

Junk W.J., S. An, C.M. Finlayson, B. Gopal, J. Kvêt, S.A. Mitchell, W.J. Mitsch and R.D. Robarts. 2013.

Current state of knowledge regarding the world’s wetlands and their future under global climate

change: a synthesis. Aquatic Sciences 75: 151–167.

Jonker S.A., J.R. Organ, R.M. Muth, R.R. Zick and W.R. Siemer. 2009. Stakeholder norms toward beaver

management in Massachusetts. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1158–1165.

Lisle S. 2003. The use and potential of flow devices in beaver management. Lutra 46(2): 211–216.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 63 Hood 2016

Madden F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts

to address human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 247–257.

McManus J.S., A.J. Dickman, D. Gaynor, B.H. Smuts and D.W. MacDonald. 2015. Dead or alive?

Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human-wildlife conflict mitiagion on

livestock farms. Oryx 49(4): 687–695.

Mensing D.M., S.M. Galatowitsch and J.R. Tester. 1998. Anthropogenic effects on the biodiversity of

riparian wetlands of a northern temperate landscape. Journal of Environmental Management

53: 349–377.

Naiman R.J., J.M. Melillo and J.E. Hobbie. 1986. Ecosystem alteration of boreal forest streams by beaver

(Castor canadensis). Ecology 67: 12541269.

Nolte D.L., S.R. Swafford and C.A. Sloan. 2000. Survey of factors affecting the success of Clemson beaver

pond levelers installed in Mississippi by Wildlife Services. Ninth Wildlife Damage Conference

Proceedings 120125.

Peters H.P. 2013. Gap between science and media revisited: scientists as public communicators.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 110 (Supplement 3): 14102–14109.

Rosell F., O. Bozsér, P. Collen and H. Parker. 2005. Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber and Castor

canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mammal Review 35(3&4): 248–276.

Samson F. and F. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. BioScience 44(6): 418–421.

Schick C.D. 1972. A documentation and analysis of wetland drainage in the Alberta parkland. Canadian

Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 15 pp.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 64 Hood 2016

Schindler D.W. and W.F. Donahue. 2006. An impending water crisis in Canada's western prairie

provinces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 72107216.

Siemer W.F., S.A Jonker, D.D. Decker and J.F. Organ. 2013. Toward an understanding of beaver

management as human and beaver densities increase. Human–Wildlife Interactions 7(1):

114131.

Sifuna N. 2010. Wildlife damage and its impact on public attitudes towards conservation: a comparative

study of Kenya and Botswana, with particular reference to Kenya’s Laikipia Region and

Botswana’s Okavango Delta Region. Journal of Asian and African Studies 45(3): 274296.

Simon L. 2006. Solving beaver flooding problems through the use of water flow control devices.

Proceedings 22nd Vertebrate Pest Conference 22: 174180.

Taylor J.D. and R.D. Singleton. 2014. The evolution of flow devices used to reduce flooding by beavers: a

review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38: 127–133.

Waldron J.L., S.M. Welch, J. Holloway and T.A. Mousseau. 2013. Using occupancy models to examine

human-wildlife interactions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 18: 138–151.

Walters C.J. and C.S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology

71: 2060–2068.

Westbrook C.J., D.J. Cooper and B.W. Baker. 2006. Beaver dams and overbank floods influence

groundwater–surface water interactions of a Rocky Mountain riparian area. Water Resources

Research 42: W06404.

Westgate M.J., G.E. Likens and D.B. Lindenmayer. 2013. Adaptive management of biological systems: a

review. Biological Conservation 158: 128–139.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 65 Hood 2016

Whigham D.F., C. Chitterling and B. Palmer. 1988. Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality: a

landscape perspective. Environmental Management 12(5): 663–671.

Williams B.K. 2011. Adaptive management of natural resources – framework and issues. Journal of

Environmental Management 92: 1346–1353.

Wright J.P., C.G. Jones and A.S. Flecker. 2002. An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species

richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia 132: 96–101.

Zaksek M. and J.L. Arvai. 2004. Toward improved communication about wildland fire: mental models

research to identify information needs for natural resource management. Risk Analysis 24:

1503–1514.

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 66 Hood 2016

APPENDIX A: BEAVER COUNTY PEST-CONTROL POLICIES

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 67 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 68 A G R I C U L T U R E AG - 013

POLICY AND PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE: HANDBOOK LEVEL OF SERVICE - PEST CONTROL

POLICY: Beaver County is committed to fulfilling its duties under the Agricultural Pests Act. As such, it endeavors to allocate sufficient resources for the purpose of pest control and to apply those resources efficiently, so as to maximize the benefits derived by the agricultural sector. Beaver County also understands of the severity of damage caused by non-agricultural and crop pests. Detecting, monitoring and if required, management of these pests will be undertaken to protect land and livelihood of agricultural producers.

APPLICATION TO VISION STATEMENT

Beaver County will monitor the municipality for declared agricultural nuisance pests and respond to declared pest infestations to improve and maintain efficiency and sustainability of our agriculture industry.

PROCEDURES:

1. For all pests, Beaver County is committed to providing education on an integrated pest management strategy.

Vertebrate Pests – Agricultural

Gopher Control: ELIGIBILITY: Agricultural producers who own land within the boundaries of Beaver County are eligible for services provided under this Policy. Persons whose farming status is unknown to the County will be required to produce their Alberta Farm Fuel Declaration Number or Canadian Wheat Board Permit Number.

GUIDELINES: 1. Beaver County will follow the guidelines and restrictions set out by Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development as well as the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency. 2. The County will provide the agricultural producer with education on the use of an integrated pest management strategy, which would include baiting before green up, timing control, use of other toxins, shooting, trapping, nest boxes, etc. 3. Persons wanting to purchase strychnine should ensure availability by calling the County Office. 4. Absolutely no 2% Liquid Strychnine will be released unless the recipient has been properly instructed as to the proper safe handling of the bait material, and the release form provided is signed. Customers must agree to use the product as directed on the label, and provide all requested information including the product evaluation form. Council Approval Date: March 22, 2012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 1 of 7 Last Revision: A G R I C U L T U R E AG - 013

POLICY AND PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE: HANDBOOK LEVEL OF SERVICE - PEST CONTROL 5. A copy of the release form is kept on file for County records. 6. The maximum quantity available to each customer will be 2 cases per week.

Coyote (Canis latrans) Control: DEFINITIONS: Coyote Predation Control Material: Devices or poisonous materials as listed in the Agricultural Pests Act, Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation, Form 8, or a ‘Permit to Destroy Coyote Using Dogs’ under the Agricultural Pests Act, Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation, Form 9. Coyote Predation Control Activity: The authorized utilization of coyote predation control material. Livestock Producer: A person, company or organization operating a livestock enterprise that is raising or feeding livestock. This does not include any animals that are raised, kept or otherwise maintained for other purposes, including hobby or sport. Livestock Predation: The killing or harassing of livestock by coyotes

ELIGIBILITY: Livestock Producers with operations located within Beaver County are eligible for services provided under this Policy.

GUIDELINES: 1. Coyote Predation Control Activity will be provided on a first come first serve basis. 2. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer shall hold a valid Form 7 Permit under the Agricultural Pests Act. 3. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer will authorize the issuance of Coyote Predation Control Materials and the conducting of Coyote Predation Control Activities according to the Agricultural Pests Act, Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation 4. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer will issue the appropriate documentation where Coyote Predation Control Activities are warranted. The proper forms shall be completed in full and signed by the Livestock Producer. The Livestock Producer will be expected to set out and supervise toxicant sets according to the Form 8 provided by the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer. 5. Target and/or non-target species taken from poison baits as well as poison baits not totally consumed shall be picked up and buried by the Livestock Producer. 6. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer will not place the poison on private land; however a Coyote Control Agreement form can be obtained to allow the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer to fire a firearm on private land.

Council Approval Date: March 22, 2012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 2 of 7 Last Revision: A G R I C U L T U R E AG - 013

POLICY AND PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE: HANDBOOK LEVEL OF SERVICE - PEST CONTROL 7. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer will not issue toxicants if it is of their opinion that public safety could be at risk, if the producer simply wants the toxicants to reduce the number of coyotes present, or if the producer notices coyotes hanging around stock. 8. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer may refuse to issue toxicants if in his/her opinion, the Livestock Producer is not showing good stewardship through: a. Use of alternative methods of predator control through fencing, snaring or the use of guardian dogs. b. Adequate safety or management of the toxicant. 9. In particularly difficult cases the Provincial Predator Control Specialist will be contacted to assist the producer. 10. Complaints of predation of livestock by all other wild predators, such as wolves, foxes, and cougars, are to be directed to the local office of Alberta Sustainable Resources, Fish and Wildlife office. Complaints of livestock predation and other problems by domestic dogs should be directed to the local RCMP office.

Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Control: ELIGIBILITY: Ratepayers located within the boundaries of Beaver County are eligible for services provided under this Policy.

GUIDELINES: 1. Skunk traps are to be used for the purpose of trapping and removing problem skunks and not for commercial trapping. 2. Skunk trap requests are to be made through the County office. Traps are provided on a first come first serve basis. 3. Ratepayers/residents are responsible for picking up/returning skunk traps to the Beaver County Agriculture Shop. The landowner will only be allowed to obtain one trap for one week from the date of pickup. 4. Prior to pick up the skunk trap ratepayers/residents are required to post a deposit in an amount as outlined in the County Bylaw - Fee for Service. 5. The deposit will be retained by the County if: a. The trap is not returned within one week from the date of pick-up, or b. The trap is returned damaged.

Wild Boar Program: Procedures are developed by Alberta Agriculture and can be made available upon request

Council Approval Date: March 22, 2012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 3 of 7 Last Revision: A G R I C U L T U R E AG - 013

POLICY AND PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE: HANDBOOK LEVEL OF SERVICE - PEST CONTROL Vertebrate Pests – Non Agricultural

Beaver (Castor canadensis) Control: GUIDELINES: 1. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer is the Supervisor while the control work is being performed. 2. The transportation, handling and use of explosives by County personnel when undertaking Beaver Control will comply with all government regulations and County safety policies.

Requests for Service – Private Lands 1. Beaver Control measures may be undertaken at the request of an Owner/Occupant or at the initiative of Beaver County on lands to which access is permitted. 2. A fee for service will be charged for Beaver Control on Owner/Occupant property as stated in Bylaw 10-967 – Fee for Service. 3. Prior to the start of Beaver Control, the landholder must sign a Beaver Control Agreement to commit payment for the services rendered. In the event that blasting is on fish-bearing waters the dam blaster will comply with the conditions specified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 4. It is the applicant’s responsibility to acquire all the necessary signed easements from adjacent landowners who may have beaver dams that are affecting the applicant’s land. The County must have possession of these easements prior to the commencement of the control work. It is also the applicant’s responsibility to notify the landowners that may be adversely affected (upstream and downstream) by the removal of a beaver dam(s). If dams which are to be blasted upstream could cause a problem downstream, those downstream dams will be blasted/removed at the complainant’s expense. Beaver lodges will not be removed with explosives. 5. The removal of beaver shall be addressed with due consideration for site specific opportunities and constraints that might be present themselves and in a fashion that reduces the risk of non-target animal capture with human safety being of paramount importance. 6. The Landflood Control Officer will contact the landowner prior to commencing work on a property for any beaver control activity, including trapping and dam removal. 7. The Landflood Control Officer will also notify the landowner that it is their responsibility to notify any renters or leases of potential activity on the property and concerns should be directed to the Landflood Control officer. 8. Beaver County and its Employees have the right to refuse any requests by an Owner/Occupant on his/her property at their discretion 9. If, in the opinion of the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer, the control work cannot be carried out safely, the responsibility for control will be with the Owner/Occupant.

Requests for Service – Municipal Lands/Public Infrastructure

Council Approval Date: March 22, 2012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 4 of 7 Last Revision: A G R I C U L T U R E AG - 013

POLICY AND PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE: HANDBOOK LEVEL OF SERVICE - PEST CONTROL 1. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer will respond to requests from ratepayers for beaver control on municipal lands and will actively pursue and eradicate beaver and beaver dams on all municipal controlled property. 2. Alberta Transportation is responsible for the maintenance of the road culverts blocked by beaver on all primary and secondary highways. 3. Beaver County will initiate control at no charge where beaver dams are causing ponding of water within Beaver County road allowances or licensed drainage districts.

Dam Removal 1. Beaver County shall remove only the necessary sections of beaver dams, as required to facilitate the flow of water. Removal of entire dams will be done in a discriminating manner so as to avoid downstream flooding and siltation, increased dynamite costs, and increase risk of blasting damage from larger sized charges. Dams shall be removed sequentially starting from the ones lowest downstream, and moving in an upstream manner for subsequent blasts. 2. Sites harboring large beaver numbers adjacent to Beaver County infrastructure that are subject to problematic beaver activity may receive beaver control work at no charge provided the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer obtains the appropriate authorization and permission to proceed. 3. Residents living within 200 metres of the proposed blasting site shall be notified of the intent to remove the dam. Notification of the blast shall be given as soon as scheduling is known as well as immediately prior to the blast, and shall be made in person. If the resident is not at home at the time of the blast, the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer shall leave a form letter explaining the intent of Beaver County and shall determine visually if there are any constraints apparent on the property. 4. In the event the beaver activity is located outside of the municipality’s right of ways, the Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer shall seek Owner/Occupant permission for dam/beaver removal activities and will notify the landowner 24 hours in advance of such activity. 5. The Landflood/Wildlife Control Officer is to ensure the blast locations are not in the immediate proximity to underground and overhead utility lines.

Crop Pests

Blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) Control: GUIDELINES: 1. The Agricultural Service Board (ASB) may conduct an annual random survey to detect blackleg in canola within Beaver County. 2. Any land known or suspected to be infested with blackleg should be reported to the ASB. 3. The presence of any suspected blackleg will be confirmed by laboratory analysis. 4. Landowners/occupants with land having a confirmed blackleg in canola infestation, will receive a Letter of Recommendation from the ASB outlining appropriate control and management procedures. Council Approval Date: March 22, 2012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 5 of 7 Last Revision: A G R I C U L T U R E AG – 013 ADMINSTRATIVE PROCEDURE: POLICY AND PROCEDURE LEVEL OF SERVICE PEST CONTROL HANDBOOK

5. A Notice to Control Pests under the Alberta Agricultural Pests Act, may be issued to a landowner and/or occupant with a confirmed blackleg in canola infestation, directing them to undertake the following control measures. a. Bury infected canola stubble no later than May 15 of the following season. b. Seed only non-host crops for the following three seasons on land confirmed with blackleg. c. The non-host crop planted on known infested land must be kept free of all volunteer canola and wild mustard. d. Seed harvested from infected crops shall be prohibited for use as seed and shall be sold for crushing or export. 6. Non-compliance will be referred to the Agricultural Pests Act. 7. All landowners and/or occupants within ½ mile of a confirmed infestation will be notified of the infestation, and be advised not to seed canola adjacent to the infested land for three years. 8. All landowners and/or occupants of blackleg free land are encouraged to use certified seed tested free of blackleg, or use blackleg tolerant varieties of canola.

Clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) Disease of Canola and Mustard Control: GUIDELINES: 1. Educational activities to increase awareness of best management practices for Clubroot will be undertaken by the ASB. 2. The Agricultural Fieldman will implement field surveys to detect Clubroot infestations, as follows: a. Canola fields will be surveyed, and the number of fields surveyed per year may be adjusted as infestation levels become known. b. Surveying will be conducted in accordance with best survey practices as outlined by Alberta Agriculture with the following exceptions: . When the pre-scouting of ripening canola fields identifies symptomatic crop damage, the field will be promptly surveyed and the surveying may then be limited to the suspect areas alone. . Approach surveys will be conducted and if clubroot is suspected within a field, a full field survey will be completed. c. For the purposes of Clubroot control, a field is a continuous area on a property where a crucifer crop is growing or has been grown. Where this area does not encompass the entire property, the following parameters will apply: i. Field boundaries that are not coterminous with property boundaries will be determined using a GPS unit and a fifteen (15) meter buffer will be added to any field boundary thus determined. ii. Once the first infested field on a property has been delineated, the remainder of the property will be considered to constitute a second field.

Council Approval Date: March 22, 21012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 6 of 7 Last Revision: March 13, 2013 A G R I C U L T U R E AG – 013 ADMINSTRATIVE PROCEDURE: POLICY AND PROCEDURE LEVEL OF SERVICE PEST CONTROL HANDBOOK

3. When Clubroot is confirmed in a field, a NOTICE TO CONTROL PESTS will be issued for that field. The conditions required in the Notice will be based on the following criteria:

a. A Low Infestation will be considered as 1 positive site out of 10 sample sites using the clubroot survey method. Positive sites will be confirmed by plant specimen lab test. i. A 3 year crop rotation, including a resistant variety, will be required provided that a management plant is established between the landowner and the Agricultural Fieldman (or designate). ii. Information will be communicated to the public in regards to the township affected by an infestation. Further information for legal land descriptions will be dealt with under Section 10 Notification of Infestation of the Agricultural Pest Act.

b. A High Infestation will be considered as 2 or more positive sites out of 10 samples sites using the clubroot survey method. Positive sites will be confirmed by a plant specimen lab test. i. A 4 year crop rotation, including a resistant variety, will be required provided that a management plan is established between the landowner and the Agricultural Fieldman (or designate). ii. Written notification of the land location of the infested field will be mailed to all adjacent landowners of the affected property. iii. Information will be communicated to the public in regards to the township affected by an infestation. Further information for legal land descriptions will be dealt with under Section 10 Notification of Infestation of the Agricultural Pest Act.

4. All County Departments having employees, equipment, or vehicles which may enter onto agricultural land will develop and implement good sanitation practices to restrict the movement of possibly contaminated soil or crop residues.

Insect Pests

Grasshopper, Bertha Armyworm and Other Insect Pest Surveys: Procedures are developed by Alberta Agriculture and can be made available upon request

Council Approval Date: March 22, 21012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 7 of 7 Last Revision: March 13, 2013 A G R I C U L T U R E AG –013 POLICY: POLICY AND PROCEDURE LEVEL OF SERVICE PEST CONTROL HANDBOOK

POLICY: Beaver County is committed to fulfilling its duties under the Agricultural Pests Act. As such, it endeavors to allocate sufficient resources for the purpose of pest control and to apply those resources efficiently, so as to maximize the benefits derived by the agricultural sector. Beaver County also understands of the severity of damage caused by non-agricultural and crop pests. Detecting, monitoring and if required, management of these pests will be undertaken to protect land and livelihood of agricultural producers.

APPLICATION TO VISION STATEMENT

Beaver County will monitor the municipality for declared agricultural nuisance pests and respond to declared pest infestations to improve and maintain efficiency and sustainability of our agriculture industry.

LEVEL OF SERVICE:

1. For all pests, Beaver County is committed to providing education on an integrated pest management strategy. 2. A fee may be charged for services provided.

Vertebrate Pests – Agricultural

Gopher Control: 1. When it is registered for use by the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, Beaver County may dispense 2% Liquid Strychnine to qualified agricultural producers for the control of Richardson Ground Squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) and Northern Pocket Gophers (Thomomys talpoides). 2. The maximum quantity available to each customer per week will be 2 cases.

Coyote (Canis latrans) Control: 1. Beaver County will investigate the coyote complaints of livestock producers located within the County. Proof of predation must be obtained before authorizing issuance of control material and devices.

Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Control: 1. Beaver County will provide skunk traps for short term use.

Wild Boar Program: 1. Beaver County will participate in Alberta Agriculture’s Wild Boar Program to assist producers in managing Wild Boar populations within Beaver County. Council Approval Date: March 22, 2012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 1 of 3 Last Revision: March 13, 2013 A G R I C U L T U R E AG –013 POLICY: POLICY AND PROCEDURE LEVEL OF SERVICE PEST CONTROL HANDBOOK

Vertebrate Pests – Non Agricultural

Beaver (Castor canadensis) Control: 1. The removal of beaver shall be addressed with due consideration for site specific opportunities and constraints that might be present and in a fashion that reduces the risk of non-target animal capture, with human safety being of paramount importance. 2. Beaver County and its employees have the right to refuse any requests for beaver control from an Owner/Occupant on his/her property at their discretion. 3. Priority of Services for removal of beaver and beaver dams will be ranked as follows: a. Any public infrastructure system will be ranked as having the Highest and First Priority for control. b. Any private buildings or private roads will be ranked as a Second Priority for control c. Any agricultural crop lands will be ranked as the third Priority for control d. Any pasture or other lands within the County will be ranked as the fourth Priority for control. 4. Municipal Lands/Public Infrastructure: Beaver County will respond to requests from ratepayers as well as initiate control at no charge for beaver control on municipal lands and will actively pursue and eradicate beaver and beaver dams on all municipal controlled property, road allowances or municipally licensed drainage ditches. 5. Requests for Service – Private Lands: Beaver County will provide beaver control on private land to which access is permitted. In areas where multiple landowners may be affected by control, it is the applicant’s responsibility to acquire all necessary signed easements from adjacent landowners.

Crop Pests

Blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) Control: 1. The Agricultural Fieldman will implement field surveys to detect Blackleg infestations. 2. When Blackleg is confirmed in a field, a Notice to Control Pests will be issued for that field, as per the Agricultural Pests Act.

Clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) Disease of Canola and Mustard Control: 1. The Agricultural Fieldman will implement field surveys to detect Clubroot infestations. 2. When Clubroot is confirmed in a field, a Notice to Control Pests will be issued for that field, as per the Agricultural Pests Act.

Council Approval Date: March 22, 2012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 2 of 3 Last Revision: March 13, 2013 A G R I C U L T U R E AG –013 POLICY: POLICY AND PROCEDURE LEVEL OF SERVICE PEST CONTROL HANDBOOK

Insect Pests

Grasshopper, Bertha Armyworm and Other Insect Pest Surveys 1. Beaver County will implement field surveys to detect infestations of Grasshopper, Bertha Armyworm, and other nuisance species. These surveys will be in accordance with Alberta Agriculture’s guidelines.

Administration shall develop procedures to implement this Policy, which may be amended from time to time to improve the Policy’s effectiveness without compromising the intent of the policy.

Council Approval Date: March 22, 2012 Motion: 12-077 Page: 3 of 3 Last Revision: March 13, 2013 Hood 2016

APPENDIX B: SITE MAPS

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 69 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 70 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 71 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 72 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 73 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 74 Hood 2016

APPENDIX C: RICHARDSON’S GROUND SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT PLAN

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 75 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 76

Richardson's Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus richardsonii) Management Report

Kalene Gould and Glynnis A. Hood Department of Science, Augustana Campus University of Alberta, Camrose, Alberta, T4V 2R3

Prepared for Beaver County

June 1, 2016 ©2016, Hood, University of Alberta

Also called: gopher, flickertail, picket pin

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY ...... 1 1.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.2 HABITAT AND RANGE ...... 1 1.3 BREEDING ...... 2 1.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY ...... 2 1.5 FORAGE REQUIREMENTS/ RESOURCES ...... 3 2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES ...... 3 2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES ...... 3 Infrastructure Damage ...... 3 Livestock/Crop Loss ...... 3 2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS ...... 4 2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH ...... 4 3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/ SOLUTIONS ...... 4 3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 4 Habitat Modification ...... 4 Translocation...... 4 Reproductive Sterilants ...... 5 3.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 5 Trapping ...... 5 Baited Poison ...... 6 Shooting ...... 7 Fumigants ...... 7 Foams ...... 7 Raptor Platforms ...... 7 3.3 COMBINATION OF METHODS ...... 8 Removal and Creating Physical Barrier ...... 8 Multi-capture Trap and Poison ...... 9 4. COSTS ...... 9 4.1 Non-lethal methods ...... 9 Habitat Modification ...... 9 Translocation...... 9 4.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 9

i

Trapping ...... 9 Poison ...... 10 Shooting ...... 10 Fumigants and Foams ...... 10 Raptor Platform ...... 10 4.3 COMBINATION OF METHODS ...... 11 Removal and Creating Physical Barrier ...... 11 Multi-capture Trap and Poison ...... 11 5. KEY PEOPLE/ RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/ MANAGEMENT METHODS ...... 11 REFERENCES ...... 12

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for a live capture pen for ground squirrels (2015). 9

Table 2. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for ground squirrel traps (2015)...... 9 Table 3. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for poisons for management of ground squirrels (2015)...... 10 Table 4. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations shooting supplies for controlling ground squirrels (2015)...... 10 Table 5. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for fumigants and foams for the management of ground squirrels (2015)...... 10

Table 6. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for materials to build a raptor platform (2015). ... 11 Table 7. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for building physical barriers to digging by ground squirrels (2015)...... 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Current range of Richardson’s ground squirrel. Image from: http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/image_info.cfm?species_id=352 ...... 2 Figure 2. Example of a Conibear® trap placed in a burrow entrance that has not been triggered. Image from: http://ucanr.edu...... 6

Figure 3. Example of an artificial raptor platform. Image from: wwn.inhs.illinois.edu...... 8

ii

1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

1.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Size: An adult Richardson’s ground squirrel (Urocitellus richardsonii) weighs between 215 and 700 g, depending on sex and time of year (fat must be stored before hibernation). The total length of this medium-sized rodent ranges from 28 to 32 cm from nose to tail (Eder and Kennedy 2011).

Colour: Fur is relatively uniform in color and the coloration is dependent on the time of year and age of the ground squirrel. Adult fur color ranges from buffy grey to light brown and juveniles range from soft grey to cinnamon tan. Both the coloration of the adults and juveniles lightens before hibernation (Michener [cited 2015]). Difference between sexes: Typically, males are slightly larger and heavier than females and disperse farther distances to find mates. Although litters have a sex ratio of 1:1, females outnumber males by ratios that range from 3:1 right after hibernation to 10:1 at the end of mating season due to the intense and aggressive competition between males. Despite the physical difference between sexes, it is difficult to determine sex without having the animal in- hand. Gender determination is typically accomplished by comparing the distance between the anus and the urinary opening on the animal. Males’ are significantly longer than the females’ (Michener [cited 2015]).

1.2 HABITAT AND RANGE Richardson’s ground squirrels are a native North American species that can be found throughout the Canadian provinces from central Alberta to southwestern Manitoba, as well as within the states of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and western Minnesota in the United States (Figure 1; Pattie and Fisher 1999, Michener [cited 2015]). Each adult occupies a home range of 20 to 40 m2, which consists of one or more intricate burrow systems and preferred feeding sites. The ground squirrels will only allow close relatives within their territory; territory size varies based on the sex and age of the individual, as well as the season (Michener [cited 2015]). Preferred habitat includes short- and mixed-grass prairies with an open terrain that allows for adequate predator detection. Richardson’s ground squirrels have been able to thrive despite the transformation of prairie habitat due to human practices such as agriculture and urbanization. For example, it is not uncommon to find ground squirrels in city parks, cultivated fields or pasture land (Michener [cited 2015]).

1

Figure 1. Current range of Richardson’s ground squirrel. Image from: http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/image_info.cfm?species_id=352

1.3 BREEDING Time of year: Reproduction occurs in spring when the females emerge from hibernation, after which a female will enter estrus for a 2-3 hour period during only one day of the mating season (Michener [cited 2015]). Males typically emerge from hibernation earlier than females to prepare themselves for the mating season, which is quite competitive (Michener 1998). Number of young: After a gestation period of around 23 days, a litter of 1 to 14 young will be born; however, more commonly a female will have 6 or 7 offspring. Litter size follows the hypothesis of individual optimization, which suggests that the size of the litter reflects the ecological circumstances and body condition of the mother (Risch et al. 2007). The litter, completely helpless at birth, will emerge from the burrow in about 29 days (Michener [cited 2015]). Number of clutches or litters: Females are only able to have one litter per year (Michener [cited 2015]). Dens or nests: Birth occurs in a nest chamber within a family’s complex underground burrow (Eder and Kennedy 2011).

1.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY Given the aggressive nature of the mating season of the Richardson’s ground squirrel and the differing reproductive strategies between sexes, only 5 to 15% of juvenile males survive to adulthood. Conversely, 35 to 45% of juvenile females will reach adulthood. Males adopt a much higher risk lifestyle to mate; therefore, male Richardson’s ground squirrels rarely reach the age

2 of three years; however, a female will often survive to three or four years of age, some even reaching five or six years (Michener 1998, Michener [cited 2015]).

1.5 FORAGE REQUIREMENTS/ RESOURCES Predominantly herbivores, the Richardson’s ground squirrel’s diet consists mainly of grasses, seeds, fruits and other vegetation alongside insects. Occasionally, these rodents will also eat animal protein when made readily available (e.g. roadkill), but do not kill food for themselves. Only the males will store a cache of seeds within the hibernaculum to be devoured immediately after hibernation to gain extra strength for the imminent mating season (Pattie and Fisher 1999, Michener [cited 2015]).

2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES

2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES

Infrastructure Damage Recreation areas often offer prime ground squirrel habitat, which makes residency in these areas likely. With this interface between human landscapes and ground squirrels these roads can cause damage to infrastructure. For example, golf courses occupied by ground squirrels can be affected by damage to the turf and bunkers due to burrowing activities (Knight 2012). Lawns can also be affected by burrowing by Richardson’s ground squirrels, therby resulting in aesthetically unpleasing holes and tripping hazards.

Livestock/Crop Loss As herbivores, Richardson’s ground squirrels are able to have a large impact on agricultural producers through consumption of crop material. These crop losses can result in financial costs for the landowner (Government of Saskatchewan [cited 2015]). The value of crop production can be reduced through direct injuries to the plant (e.g. grazing, partial cutting) and trampling caused by ground squirrels (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). A study conducted by Johnson-Nistler et al. (2005) in Montana determined that Richardson’s ground squirrels removed 31% of alfalfa crop in a field evaluation, which was higher than the perceived losses from landowners. However, in general, there is lack of information available to measure crop loss impacts accurately and more studies must be done in this field (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012, Michener [cited 2015]). Burrows from ground squirrels and other fossorial (ground-dwelling) species pose a risk of physical injury to livestock (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). Damage to machinery, such as hay binds, can also occur when machinery interfaces with ground squirrel burrows (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). The mounds created by Richardson’s ground squirrels can also damage equipment, as well as create fields that are

3 more difficult to harvest; however, the associated costs of damaged equipment and resulting modified farming practices have not been well-documented (Johnson-Nistler et al. 2005).

2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS Domestic animals, including cattle and horses, can be affected by the presence of Richardson’s ground squirrels. More specifically, entrance holes to the squirrels’ underground can present a hazard that can result in fractured and broken legs and the ultimate death of the animal. More studies are required to fully understand the magnitude and frequency of this type of injury to livestock.

2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH Richardson’s ground squirrels have the potential to host zoonoses (diseases from animals that affect humans), which can then be transferred to the human population. However, there has been no record of a transmission of diseases to humans from ground squirrels in the last 60 years (Michener [cited 2015]). Types of diseases associated with rodents, such as Richardson’s ground squirrel, include: plague, tularemia, campylobacteriosis, lyme disease, typhus, among others (Conover 2002).

3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/ SOLUTIONS

3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Habitat Modification Richardson’s ground squirrel populations can be discouraged from occupying a specific area through habitat modification. This method can include planting taller vegetation, such as long grasses and corn, because shorter vegetation that allows for high visibility for predator detection is preferred by these rodents. Periodic flooding is another tool that can be utilized because wet soils are not suitable for burrowing by ground squirrels. Tilled fields are also incompatible for ground squirrels. However, it is important to note that despite these methods, ground squirrels can thrive at the boundaries of fields and enter the field to forage, but not burrow. Trees and shrubs can be planted along field margins to reduce habitat suitability for ground squirrels (Yensen and Sherman 2003).

Translocation Translocation involves removing ground squirrels from an affected area through live-trapping and transporting them to a new location where their impacts on crops and livestock will be reduced. Successful translocations involve moving multiple animals (which can be live trapped in a multi-capture pen traps, such as the Wilico 70203) to an area of suitable habitat. The farther away the release site is from the capture area, the more effective the translocation. A soft release, where the animals are protected in a cage and allowed to adjust to the new location, also have better results than hard releases where the animals are trapped and released right away (Yensen and Sherman 2003). However, it is highly likely that reinvasion will 4 occur by another ground squirrel population if the new habitat remains suitable (Michener [cited 2015]).

Reproductive Sterilants Use of the steroid hormone mestranol has been tried to control Richardson’s ground squirrel within Alberta. This hormone inhibits female reproduction; however, potential population reduction was off-set by immigration from nearby populations, therefore suggesting this is not currently a suitable method for management (Yensen and Sherman 2003).

3.2 LETHAL METHODS Note that lethal methods are most effective when ground squirrels emerge from hibernation in the spring because their numbers are the lowest at that time (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012).

Trapping Under the Alberta Wildlife Act: Wildlife Regulation (1997), Richardson’s ground squirrels are considered a non-licenced wildlife species and, therefore, can be trapped by a resident not holding a trapping permit. The process of trapping can be quite labour-intensive; however, it can be effective when the affected area and ground squirrel population are small (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). A variety of traps exist: kill traps, live traps and multi-trap pens. When using traps, it is important to be diligent and check the traps every day. It is best to remove the traps during times of inactivity of the target species (e.g. nighttime for ground squirrels) and properly dispose of the carcasses and live animals. Examples of kill traps include body gripping traps, such as No. 110 Conibear® traps (Figure 2) and the GT-2006 gopher trap, which are placed on the entrance to a burrow and, once triggered, kill quickly and humanely (Proulx et al. 2010). It is important to take caution when using this type of trap because it can be a potential hazard to children and domestic pets, as well as non-target species. Other kill traps include snare traps, such as the Black Hole trap, which are relatively simple to set and aim to asphyxiate the animal. Live traps include leghold traps and box traps, they allow for animals to be captured alive and then euthanized or relocated. To avoid the capture of non-target species, leghold traps, such as the No. 0 Duke long spring trap, should be placed deep within burrows and checked daily (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). However, it is important to note that other animals may also utilize the burrow systems produced by the ground squirrels, including burrowing owls that are currently listed as endangered on the federal and provincial level (Species at Risk Act 2002, Wildlife Act 2000). Multi-capture pen traps, such as the Wilico 70203, can allow for more than one ground squirrel to be captured at a time; however, bait is often required for these types of traps (Proulx et al. 2010).

5

Figure 2. Example of a Conibear® trap placed in a burrow entrance that has not been triggered. Image from: http://ucanr.edu.

Baited Poison There are currently two different types of poisons used within Alberta: acute poisons in which a lethal dose is available in a single meal, and anti-coagulant poisons which result in death from internal bleeding and must be consumed more than once over a period of a few days. Potential baits are typically grain-based, such as oats. To reduce the potential of poisoning non-target species, baits must be placed within the burrow or inside a baiting station. Additionally, deceased ground squirrels should be removed from the field and disposed of in a manner that other animals cannot access the carcass (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). Directions on poison labels must be followed as written. Acute poisons registered in Alberta include strychnine alkaloid and zinc phosphide (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). Under Beaver County’s pest control administrative policy, 2% liquid strychnine can be purchased from the County by agricultural producers with the boundaries of the County at a maximum quantity of 2 cases per week (24 bottles per case). Strychnine is a highly dangerous compound to both humans and other animal species; therefore, under County policy, 2% liquid strychnine is only released to individuals who have been properly instructed in the safe handling of the material and have signed a release form (Beaver County 2012). Anti-coagulant poisons, such as Rozol, come in many different formats including prepared bait pellets or meal, as well as liquid concentrates that can be mixed with bait. These types of poisons take longer to affect the animal compared to acute poisons; however, the additional time can allow time for proper medical attention from accidental poisoning. Bait shyness does not usually occur because it can with acute poisons (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012).

6

Shooting Shooting is a common method used to control ground squirrel populations. Regulations must be followed regarding firearm usage including:

 Section 52(1) of the Wildlife Act: “No person shall discharge a weapon or cause a projectile from a weapon to pass within 200 yards of any occupied building”. This regulation does not include occupants of that land or persons authorized by the landowner.  Having a current Possession and Acquisition License (P.A.L.) and taken the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.

Fumigants Fumigating a ground squirrel burrow involves releasing a toxic gas into the species burrow system. It is important to note that fumigants are only effective when the ground squirrels are in their burrow; therefore, timing is important for this method and fumigation should be done early in the morning or when weather conditions are unsuitable for the animal to be aboveground. Fumigants tend to work best during times of high soil moisture because there is minimal gas absorption and leakage (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). Many other wildlife species, such as burrowing owls, utilize ground squirrel burrows and fumigation is a nonselective approach so non-target species can be affected. Common fumigants used within Alberta are gas cartridges, such as ‘The Giant Destroyer’.

Foams Foams are control agents that, once injected into the burrow system, cause asphyxia or drowning, thereby resulting in animal death (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 2012). For example, RoCon Concentrate is a rodenticide that begins as a liquid concentrate, which is then mixed with water and injected into the burrows through an aeration nozzle that initiates foaming. The foam then biodegrades within 24 hours of application. RoCon can be applied on private property without an applicators license; however, on other property types a license is required. This rodenticide is a poison-free alternative for ground squirrel control and is currently registered for use by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (RoCon Industries 2015).

Raptor Platforms Richardson’s ground squirrels are an important prey species for many native avian species in Alberta, such as the Swainson’s hawk, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk and prairie falcon, and can make up to 80% of these animals’ diet (Michener and Schmutz [cited 2015]). Building artificial raptor perches can increase the abundance of birds of prey and stimulate predation on ground squirrels, thus reducing the need to utilize poisons that can also affect non-target species. An Australian study by Kay et al. (1994) determined that the placement of artificial perches reduced both the rate of population increase of house mice and the maximum mouse population density, which indicates the potential of this method of rodent management. 7

Instructions for building raptor platforms can be found online with a variety of styles and materials used. Figure 3 shows a diagram of one example of a perch that uses a 12-foot metal pole; however, wooden poles can be used in other designs.

Figure 3. Example of an artificial raptor platform. Image from: wwn.inhs.illinois.edu.

3.3 COMBINATION OF METHODS

Removal and Creating Physical Barrier Once Richardson’s ground squirrels have been removed through lethal or non-lethal means from an area, it is highly likely that repopulation will occur if suitable habitat is available. To help prevent burrowing on lawns, some steps can be taken to reduce the likelihood of repopulation. First, one can till the land as deeply as possible to remove the existing burrow systems, and deeper portions that cannot be tilled can be filled with foam. To prevent the creation of new burrows, one can spread chicken wire on the ground before covering it with top soil or sod. Planting specific vegetation, as mentioned previously, can also help make the area unattractive to ground squirrels. If ground squirrels begin to invade and area, despite the chicken wire, one can make their new burrows unsuitable by filling them with foam or pouring in foul-smelling liquids. Ground squirrels are quite persistent; therefore, actions might require repeated applications (Michener [cited 2015]).

8

Multi-capture Trap and Poison

The use of a multi-capture pen alongside rodenticides, such as strychnine and baited poisons, can help reduce the amount of secondary poisoning of non-target species. Predators and scavengers are unable to access the ground squirrels that die in the trap, thereby reducing risk of inadvertent poisoning of non-target species (Proulx et al. 2010). Dead ground squirrels should be removed from the trap regularly and disposed of properly to avoid accidentally poisoning.

4. COSTS

4.1 Non-lethal methods

Habitat Modification Cost for habitat modifications (e.g. replacing vegetation, flooding soils, and tilling the land) are highly variable (depending on type of vegetation, landscape size and available equipment) and, therefore, are not included within this report.

Translocation Below are the costs of a specific live-capture pen that could be used to trap multiple ground squirrels at once (Table 1). Costs for translocations would also include transportation costs, which depend on fuel prices and distance between capture and release locations.

Table 1. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for a live capture pen for ground squirrels (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Wilico 70203 trap Amazon.ca approx. $84.82

4.2 LETHAL METHODS

Trapping There is a variety of traps available on the market that would be suitable for ground squirrel control. Table 2 provides a small sample of trap prices. Note that more than one trap is required for this method to be effective, with the number of total traps proportional to the size of the affected area.

Table 2. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for ground squirrel traps (2015). Item Location Cost (CAD) No. 110 Conibear® trap Halford’s, Edmonton $8.95 GT-2006 gopher trap Halford’s, Edmonton $28.90 Black Hole gopher trap Halford’s, Edmonton $18.35 No. 0 Duke single long spring trap F&T Fur Harvesters Trading Post approx. $6.50 Wilico 70203 trap Amazon.ca $84.82

9

Poison When using an acute or anti-coagulant poison (Table 3), one must have the proper training in the storage and handling of these materials to avoid the accidental poisoning of humans and other species.

Table 3. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for poisons for management of ground squirrels (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) 2% liquid strychnine Beaver County, AB $7.50/ bottle Liquid Rozol® gopher poison (produces 6 lb of UFA $21.99/ bottle poisoned bait) Hen Scratch (25 kg) (grain mixture for bait) UFA $13.50

Shooting Table 4 provides a sample of equipment needed to shoot ground squirrels (typically a .22 caliber rifle works well); however, the type of firearm will vary depending on individual requirements. The correct P.A.L. licence must be obtained (restricted, non-restricted or prohibited) for the type of firearm to be used.

Table 4. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations shooting supplies for controlling ground squirrels (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Non-restricted Canadian Firearm Safety Course Safe Alberta Firearms Educators $170 Non-restricted P.A.L application fee RCMP $60 Crossman Nitro Venom Air Rifle Canadian Tire, Camrose $230 Daisy .22 Lead Pellets (500/pkg) Cabela’s, Edmonton $7

Fumigants and Foams There are many types of fumigants and foams available; however, fumigants that contain phosphine gas require a certificate to purchase and apply and are not mentioned within the cost section of this report (Table 5). Foams are more readily available for purchase.

Table 5. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for fumigants and foams for the management of ground squirrels (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) The Giant Destroyer gas cartridges (4 pack) UFA $8 RoCon Concentrate Rodentcide basic kit www.roconrodentcontrol.ca $450 Case of RoCon Concentrate (4 x 4 L jugs) www.roconrodentcontrol.ca $150

Raptor Platform The following costs are based on the platform design shown in Figure 3; however, there are many other designs available online that use different materials (Table 6).

10

Table 6. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for materials to build a raptor platform (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) 12’ hollow steel pipe www.metalsdepot.com $141.32 2” x 12” x 16’ lumber Home Depot $23.98 6’ heavy-duty T-Rail post UFA $7.99

4.3 COMBINATION OF METHODS

Removal and Creating Physical Barrier Cost for removal of ground squirrels will vary with the preferred management method used. Chicken wire is a relatively inexpensive material that can be purchased at most hardware stores. It is then laid on the ground and covered with soil.

Table 7. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for building physical barriers to digging by ground squirrels (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Chicken wire 24” x 25’ roll Rona $7.39

Multi-capture Trap and Poison Cost for this management method will involve the use of traps and poisons mentioned in above sections.

5. KEY PEOPLE/ RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/ MANAGEMENT METHODS  Bill and Duncan Abercrombie, Animal Damage Control: A Division of Bushman Inc. Strathcona County, Alberta, Office: 780-998-0074, Toll free: 877-446-0204, Email: [email protected]  Dr. Gail R. Michener, Professor Emeritus, Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, Email: [email protected]

11

REFERENCES Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. 2012 Jul 1. [place of publication unknown]: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry. Managing Richardson’s ground squirrels; [accessed 2015 Jul 7]. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3471 Beaver County. 2012. Administrative procedure: level of service- pest control. Ryley (AB): Beaver County. 7 p. Conover M. 2002. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damaging management. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press LLC. Eder T, Kennedy G. 2011. Mammals of Canada. Edmonton (AB): Lone Pine Publishing. Government of Saskatchewan. [date unknown]. [place of publication unknown]: Government of Saskatchewan. Control of Richardson’s ground squirrels; [date unknown; accessed 2015 Jul 7]. http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Control_Ground_Squirrels. Johnson-Nistler CM, Knight JE, Cash SD. 2005. Considerations related to Richardson’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii) control in Montana. Agronomy Journal. 97: 1460- 1464. Kay BJ, Twigg LE, Korn TJ, Nicol HI. 1994. The use of artificial perches to increase predation on house mice (Mus domesticus) by raptors. Wildlife Research. 21: 95-106. Knight J. 2012 Aug. Ground squirrel control on golf courses. Turfgrass Trends: Animal Instincts. [accessed 2015 Jul 6]. 33-36. http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/2012aug33.pdf Michener GR. [date unknown]. Richardson’s ground squirrel. Lethbridge (AB): University of Alberta; c2015 [accessed 2015 May 29]. http://research.uleth.ca/rgs/index.cfm Michener GR. 1998. Sexual differences in reproductive effort of Richardson’s ground squirrels. Journal of Mammalogy. 79(1): 1-19. Michener GR, Schmutz JK. [date unknown]. Richardson’s ground squirrel Spermophilus richardsonii. [place of publication unknown]: Prairie Conservation Forum; [accessed 2015 Jul 28]. 9 p. http://www.albertapcf.org/rsu_docs/prairie_notes_2.pdf Pattie D, Fisher C. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Edmonton (AB): Lone Pine Publishing. Proulx G, MacKenzie N, MacKenzie K, Proulx B, Stang K. 2010. The Richardson’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus richardsonii) research & control program 2009-2010. Regina (SK): Alpha Wildlife Research & Management LTD; [accessed 2015 Jul 16]. 50 p. http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/apps/adf/adfadminreport/20070224.pdf Risch TS, Michener GR, Dobson FS. 2007. Variation in litter size: a test of hypotheses in Richardson’s ground squirrels. Ecology. 88(2): 306-314. RoCon Industries. 2015. Beaumont (AB): RoCon Industries; [accessed 2015 Jul 16]. http://roconrodentcontrol.ca/ 12

Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29. Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10. Yensen E, Sherman P. 2003. Ground squirrels (Spermophilus and Ammospermophilus species). In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and conservation. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 211-231.

13

Hood 2016

APPENDIX D: COYOTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 77 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 78

Coyote (Canis latrans) Management Report

http:// /coyote.html dreamatico.com

Melissa Tollitt and Glynnis A. Hood Department of Science, Augustana Campus University of Alberta, Camrose, Alberta, T4V 2R3

Prepared for Beaver County

June 1, 2016 ©2016, Hood, University of Alberta

Also called: Brush wolf, prairie wolf and American jackal (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

Table of Contents 1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY ...... 1 1.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.2 HABITAT AND RANGE ...... 2 1.3 BREEDING ...... 3 1.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY ...... 3 1.5 FORAGE REQUIREMENTS/ RESOURCES ...... 3 2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES ...... 4 2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES ...... 4 Structural Damage ...... 4 Livestock/ Crop Loss ...... 4 2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS ...... 4 2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH ...... 4 3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/ SOLUTIONS ...... 5 3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 5 Guard Animals ...... 5 Removal of Livestock Carrion ...... 5 Livestock Husbandry Techniques ...... 5 Land Use Practices ...... 5 Exclusion ...... 6 Audio and Visual Deterrents ...... 7 3.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 7 Culling and Shooting ...... 7 Trapping ...... 8 Poison ...... 9 3.3 COMBINATION OF METHODS ...... 9 4. COSTS ...... 10 4.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 10 Guard Animals ...... 10 Livestock Carrion Removal ...... 10 Exclusion ...... 10 Audio/ Visual Deterrents ...... 10 4.2 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 11

i

Culling and Shooting ...... 11 Trapping and Snaring ...... 11 Poison ...... 12 5. KEY PEOPLE/ RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/ MANAGEMENT METHODS ...... 12 6. LITERATURE CITED ...... 13

List of Tables

Table 1. Acquisition and upkeep costs of guard animals used to prevent livestock depredation by coyotes in agricultural areas (2015)...... 10 Table 2. Costs (CAD) for stock fencing supplies to minimize or eliminate coyote predation of livestock (2015)...... 10

Table 3. Costs (CAD) for audio/visual devices to deter livestock predation by coyotes (2015). .. 11

Table 4. Costs (CAD) for lethal management of coyotes through calling and shooting (2015). .. 11

Table 5. Costs (CAD) of approved traps and snares used to catch coyotes in Alberta (2015). .... 11

List of Figures

Figure 1. Comparison of Gray wolf and Coyote silhouette and footprint. Image from: http://icwdm.org/handbook/carnivor/Wolves.asp ...... 1 Figure 2. Map of historic and current distribution of the coyote (Canis latrans). From: http://www.projectcoyote.com/Coyotes_In_Our_Midst.pdf ...... 2 Figure 3. A barrier fence for excluding coyotes. The wire overhang prevents coyotes from jumping the fence and the buried apron prevents digging under the fence. From: Green et al. 1994...... 6

ii

1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

1.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Size: Coyotes are approximately the same size as a medium-sized domestic dog and stand approximately 60 cm at the shoulder and 1.5 m from nose to tip of tail. Adults weigh an average of 13 kg. Communication is done by howling or yips as well as marking with urine. Coyotes have good hearing, eyesight and sense of smell (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003, Mastro 2011). Colour: Fur is mainly grey to reddish brown, with a light-coloured underbelly, and can vary slightly among individuals. Dark guard hairs can be seen on the head, back and tail. Distinct features include a thin muzzle, pointed ears and a bushy tail, with a dark tip, that is held down when walking or running (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003, Mastro 2011). Difference between sexes: It can be difficult to distinguish between sexes when viewing from a distance unless they are together to compare size. Males are larger and weigh from 11 – 16 kg, while the smaller females weigh from 10 to 14 kg (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003, Mastro 2011). Other identifying marks: Coyotes are often mistaken for wolves. Tracks are another method for positive identification. Although similar in shape, the tracks of a coyote are smaller with less obvious nail markings than tracks of a wolf. Coyotes also show a smaller stride, (41 to 46 cm), compared to that of a wolf (38 to 81 cm) (Green et al. 1994, The Wildlife Society University of Northern British Columbia [cited 2015]).

Figure 1. Comparison of Gray wolf and Coyote silhouette and footprint. Image from: http://icwdm.org/handbook/carnivor/Wolves.asp

1

1.2 HABITAT AND RANGE The historical distribution of the coyote was mainly confined to the prairies and grasslands of North America and Mexico. As settlement occurred in the 1800s, the coyote expanded its territory to take advantage of the opportunities associated with human activity. Elimination of predators, forest clearing and abundant food sources, including human garbage and dead livestock, have allowed the coyote to extend its range as far north as the Yukon, east to the Great Lakes, and south to Panama (Fox and Papouchis 2005, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010). Coyotes occupy diverse habitats and can easily adapt to altered landscapes. Currently they can be found from Costa Rica to Alaska and Vancouver Island to Newfoundland and Labrador. In North America, they are commonly found in agricultural and forested areas and are more frequently found in large cities. The home range of an individual is an average of 20 km, but this distance varies seasonally, with food supply and population density. Coyotes tend to avoid areas that are occupied by large carnivores due to predation and competition for food sources, although they will follow trails of other carnivores and scavenge on previous kills. Natural predators include bears, cougars and wolves (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003, Fox and Papouchis 2005, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

Figure 2. Map of historic and current distribution of the coyote (Canis latrans). From: http://www.projectcoyote.com/Coyotes_In_Our_Midst.pdf

2

1.3 BREEDING Time of year: Breeding occurs in February with mating pairs staying together for multiple years. Packs consist of a dominant breeding pair and multiple pack members including the previous year’s pups, which help rear young. Reproductive maturity is reached at approximately one year of age (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003, Mastro 2011). Number of young: Litters average six pups; however, numbers can vary depending on food availability in the preceding winter. Pups are born from April to May and stay inside the den for approximately 2 to 3 weeks (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003). Number of litters or clutches: Coyotes tend to have only one litter per year because adults teach pups to hunt over summer and dispersal happens by late autumn (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003). Dens or nests: Dens are created in banks, underbrush, sinkholes and excavated burrows of other animals, and are used for birthing and raising pups. Dens vary in size, have multiple entrances and are often south facing. It is common for coyotes to move den locations multiple times before pups are weaned. Once pups are weaned, coyotes move into the open, and bed down in sheltered areas including long grass, abandoned buildings and dense forest cover (Green et al. 1994, Mastro 2011).

1.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY Many coyotes can live up to 14 years in the wild, with human activity being the leading cause of death (Bekoff and Gese 2003, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

1.5 FORAGE REQUIREMENTS/ RESOURCES Coyotes play an important role in ecosystem health by reducing populations of small predators including foxes, racoons, and feral cats, as well as herbivores such as jackrabbits and deer, which compete with livestock for food sources and consume vegetation used by birds. Coyotes can be sighted during the day but are mainly active when searching for food during the times near sunrise and sunset. Main food sources include small mammals such as rabbits, rodents, and insects including grasshoppers. Coyotes will form packs when preying on larger mammals like deer and livestock, but focus on the small, weakened or sick animals to expend as little energy as possible. When available, coyotes will also scavenge dead animals and frequent animal pits that are commonly found on livestock farms. In urban settings, coyotes will take advantage of garbage and pet food if left out in accessible areas and might prey on small pets when left unattended. Fences are a good way to deter coyotes from entering a yard. Garbage and compost bins should be “animal proof”, fruit shrubs should be removed and pets and small children should always be supervised (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003, Fox and Papouchis 2005, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

3

2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES

2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES

Structural Damage There is little documented concern for structural damage (buildings or roadways) caused by coyotes.

Livestock/ Crop Loss Livestock loss from coyote depredation tends to be concentrated in the early spring and summer months, when pups are young and creating a greater demand for food. This increased predation coincides with the availability of young cattle and sheep, which are preferred targets. When dealing with loss of livestock, it is necessary to identify the cause of death and species involved if depredation is suspected (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010). Tracks and scat are not sufficient proof of depredation as scavengers may be in the area as well (Green et al. 1994, Knowlton et al. 1999, VerCauteren et al. 2005). Crops most often lost to coyotes include fruit crops, such as watermelon, as well as vegetable gardens. Coyotes have also been known to chew through irrigation pipes, which slows crop growth (VerCauteren et al. 2005).

2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS Coyotes can carry multiple diseases including canine distemper, rabies, parvo virus, heartworm, hookworm, tapeworm, tularemia and sarcoptic mange, which can all be transferred to domestic pets. Transfer is usually by exposure to infected coyote feces or if an infected coyote bites another animal. In urban settings, coyotes can prey on small pets, thereby causing death or injury (Green et al. 1994, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH Diseases that can be transferred to humans include heartworm, hookworm, tapeworm, rabies and tularemia. These parasites and diseases can be transferred by direct exposure to infected coyote feces and bites by infected animals. In the case of tularemia, infection can occur by inhalation of contaminated dust and ingestion of contaminated water. Safety concerns in urban recreational areas, including hiking trails and wildlife-watching areas, are becoming more common as coyotes become habituated to human activity. Many management plans now focus on airport safety because the number of coyotes inhabiting areas near airports is increasing. Airport managers emphasize excluding coyotes from runways to prevent contact with airplanes (Green et al. 1994, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010, CDC 2011).

4

3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/ SOLUTIONS Focus should be placed on prevention of depredation and maintaining the coyote's natural fear of humans.

3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Guard Animals Llamas, mules and donkeys are naturally aggressive towards canids and are often used to prevent coyote depredation of livestock. Dogs are thought to be the most effective animal for preventing coyote depredation. Top breeds include Great Pyrenees, Anatolian Shepard, Akbash and Komondor. Guard dogs should be raised with livestock and not be made into house pets. It is important to train and care properly for any guard animal. When using any guard animal, poison should not be used to control coyotes to prevent accidental poisoning of domestic animals (Green et al. 1994, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

Removal of Livestock Carrion Removal of carrion reduces available food sources and attractants for coyotes, especially during winter when natural food sources are scarce. Proper disposal methods include incineration, removal from property to a rendering plant, and burial. Burial works best in summer months when the earth is easy to till. One metre of compact soil must be placed over each carcass or 0.15 meters of soil mixed with 0.5 kg of quicklime for every 10 kg of flesh. It is important to note that death caused by an infectious disease must be reported to the Office of Chief Provincial Veterinarian (1-800-524-0051), and the carcass disposed of in the recommended manner. Any animal that has been euthanized must be disposed of in a way that will prevent scavengers from accessing the remains (Bekoff and Gese 2003, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2011).

Livestock Husbandry Techniques Husbandry techniques are the most important tool in helping to prevent depredation losses. Actions include monitoring herds daily and becoming familiar with their behaviour, a change may indicate the presence of predators. It is important to separate vulnerable livestock in enclosures during high risk times, such as calving, when livestock are sick or injured, or at night. If possible, coordinate breeding to limit the time when young livestock are most vulnerable. Sheltering young animals in open areas near human housing will deter coyotes from entering the area (Bekoff and Gese 2003, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010, VerCauteren et al. 2005).

Land Use Practices Removal of brush cover in areas near herds helps create a large field-of-view and eliminate hiding spots for coyotes. Removing brush also reduces areas for denning. In urban areas, small shrubs should be removed and grass kept short. The area underneath the canopy of fruit trees 5 should be kept free of fallen fruit in order to eliminate attractants for coyotes (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003, VerCauteren et al. 2005).

Exclusion Net-wire fencing with spaces less than 10 cm have been effective in preventing depredation. However, coyotes can dig underneath or climb fences if they are motivated by an easy food source on the other side. Electric wires or wire overhangs at the top of fences and barbed wire or a buried apron at the bottom will discourage the coyotes from crossing (Green et al. 1994, Bekoff and Gese 2003, VerCauteren et al. 2005, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

Figure 3. A barrier fence for excluding coyotes. The wire overhang prevents coyotes from jumping the fence and the buried apron prevents digging under the fence. From: Green et al. 1994.

6

Audio and Visual Deterrents

 Loud sirens and strobe lights: the Electronic Guard (USDA 2002) is a device that uses light and sound to frighten predators and prevent depredation. The device, which produces blasts of light and sound at timed intervals, is placed on fence posts or trees and is triggered at sunset. To control depredation, multiple devices are needed in larger areas (i.e., two devices for every 20 acres). In urban areas, starter pistols, air horns and blank bullets can be safely used to scare away coyotes (Bekoff and Gese 2003, VerCauteren et al. 2005, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).  Propane cannons: timed explosions will deter depredation but may also stress livestock. Use should be limited to times when risk of depredation is high, as it is in calving season. For both strobe lights and propane cannons, it is necessary to move the devices every few days to limit habituation and maintain their full effect on coyotes (Bekoff and Gese 2003, VerCauteren et al. 2005, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).  Lighting: Lights above corrals and calving areas are a useful deterrent against depredation because coyotes will shy away from lighted areas. The use of motion-activated lights can deter coyotes temporarily. Habituation can occur if other methods are not used to prevent coyotes from entering the property (Bekoff and Gese 2003, VerCauteren et al. 2005, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

3.2 LETHAL METHODS Lethal methods should be considered only when all other methods of prevention have been employed. It is important to be licensed and properly instructed in the use of all equipment when using lethal methods.

Culling and Shooting Under section 24(2) of the Wildlife Act, a licence is not required for hunting a nuisance animal. Shooting is the most common method used to control nuisance coyotes. Calling coyotes in with howling, small mammal distress calls, or scent baits has proven to be successful (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010). The most common caliber guns used for coyotes are the .243, .220 or .223. The shooter must be aware of his/her proximity to other dwellings. Under Section 52(1) of Alberta’s Wildlife Act, “No person shall discharge a weapon or cause a projectile from a weapon to pass within 200 yards of any occupied building.” This section of the Act does not include owners or occupants of that land or persons authorized by the landowner. In accordance with the federal Firearms Act, individuals must pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and hold a valid Possession and Acquisition Licence in order to use a firearm (Firearms Act 1995, Wildlife Act 2000).

7

Trapping Foot traps and snares are used to target problem coyotes that are causing livestock losses as well as those that cannot be deterred from urban areas. If livestock depredation is suspected, it must be reported to the County and confirmed by the County inspector (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010). Under section 24(1) of the Wildlife Act, a trapping license is required to trap or snare wildlife, including coyotes designated as pests under the Agricultural Pests Act. Beaver County does not provide traps or snares for coyote control. Landowners who are not licensed to trap can hire a qualified trapper to set and check traps on their land. For landowners who are trained and licensed, foot traps and snares can be purchased and trapping can be done on private land (Green et al. 1994, Wildlife Act 2000, Agriculture and Rural Development 2010, 2015 conversation between Duncan Abercrombie and M. Tollitt; unreferenced).

 Foot traps: Foot traps are not lethal on their own. They consist of metal jaws that grip the foot of an animal and immobilize it so it can be relocated or euthanized. Foot traps are preferred because they reduce injuries to target animals and allow for ungulates to escape the trap because these traps are not designed to hold hooves. However, if not set properly, these traps can cause severe damage or death to small, non-target animals such as rabbits, skunks, and raptors. Traps can be set on known trails where the coyotes are gaining access to the property. Scents can be placed near traps to lure the coyote to the area. There are two types of footholds commonly used for coyotes: laminated and off-set.  Laminated and off set (#2 or #3, 2 coil or 4 coil): these traps create a small gap between the jaws of the trap and foot of the animal to allow for blood flow to limbs, which decreases damage to the foot.  Soft catch (#3 or 4 coil): These traps have padded jaws which decrease the pressure on the foot and prevent the jaws from cutting into the skin (2015 conversation between Duncan Abercrombie and M. Tollitt; unreferenced).  Snares: Snares are sometimes considered a less humane method of capturing nuisance coyotes. It is recommended that anyone using snares seek additional training. If improperly set, snares can catch and injure any animal, commonly moose and deer. When using snares, it is important to have an anchor wire at least 6 feet long as well as use a “breakaway” to allow the snare to hold coyotes and release non target species (2015 conversation between Duncan Abercrombie and M. Tollitt; unreferenced). Traps and snares can result in the suffering or death of non-target species. All traps and snares must be checked daily to release non target species and to euthanize injured animals. A licence is needed to trap and snare coyotes. It is important to have adequate training and experience when using traps or snares to prevent the suffering of any animal. Traps or snares should not be used when using any type of guard animal and domestic pets should be penned up while traps or snares are in use. (Bekoff and Gese 2003, 2015 conversation between and Duncan Abercrombie and M. Tollitt; unreferenced).

8

Poison Poisons a generally considered a last resort when dealing with livestock depredation. Poisons used to control nuisance wildlife are regulated under the Pest Control Products Act of Canada and require permission for their use. As per County policy, to acquire poison, Beaver County must be contacted and the complaint investigated to provide proof of coyote depredation. Landowners using poison must have a valid Form 8 Permit. Using poison can result in the death of non-target species. It is recommended that poison not be used when using any type of guard animal. Domestic dogs should be penned up and neighbours should be notified when using any poison (Bekoff and Gese 2003, VerCauteren et al. 2005, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

 Compound 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) is available through Beaver County with proof of coyote predation. The poison 1080 is the most commonly used poison and can be obtained in pellet form or used on “livestock protection collars”. Pellets can be used to bait carrion to eliminate problem coyotes. Livestock protection collars are placed around the throats of sheep or goats. The coyote will puncture the collar when attacking the livestock and ingest the poison; however, death is painful and can take hours. Because of this delay, most attacks still end in livestock loss (Bekoff and Gese 2003, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).  M-44 devices are not available through Beaver County, but are permitted by Alberta’s Agricultural Pests Act. The device, which contains plastic capsules filled with sodium cyanide, is commonly used in cold weather conditions. The M-44 device is baited with meat and placed in an area where it is easily accessible by coyotes. When the coyote bites the meat, sodium cyanide is ejected into the mouth which results in the death of the coyote. The device should not be placed in any area where livestock or pets have access. Curious cattle, horses or dogs can trigger the device and die from the poison (Bekoff and Gese 2003, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

3.3 COMBINATION OF METHODS The most effective way to prevent human-coyote conflict is to maintain the coyote’s natural fear of humans. A combination of exclusion, scare tactics and responsible livestock management has been successful in preventing depredation of livestock. In urban areas, exclusion, scare tactics and proper garbage and pet food storage have been successful in preventing interactions. Coyotes are an important part of a healthy ecosystem; therefore, one should focus on preventing interactions and maintaining a sustainable coyote population. Lethal methods should be used only when nuisance coyotes cannot be deterred or aggressive interactions take place (Bekoff and Gese 2003, VerCauteren et al. 2005, Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

9

4. COSTS

4.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Guard Animals The type of guard animal used to prevent livestock depredation is a personal preference. The presence of any guard animal will help deter coyotes from approaching property and livestock (Table 1). Guard animals should not be treated as pets and should be raised with the livestock. Guard animals can be purchased at livestock auctions or from respectable breeders (ASPCA 2015).

Table 1. Acquisition and upkeep costs of guard animals used to prevent livestock depredation by coyotes in agricultural areas (2015).

Item Cost per animal (CAD) Food/Healthcare Llamas $200 - $4000 $500 - $1000/year Mules/donkeys $400 - $1000 $500 - $1000/year Dogs $500 - $1500 $500 - $1000/year

Livestock Carrion Removal There are multiple companies in Alberta that will pick up livestock carcasses and remove them from your property. Fees will depend on the number of carcasses to be picked up. Please refer to the yellow pages for a list of companies (Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2011).

Exclusion There are many farm supply stores that stock fencing supplies. Table 2 present an example of costs associated with fencing.

Table 2. Costs (CAD) for stock fencing supplies to minimize or eliminate coyote predation of livestock (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Barbed Wire 1/4 mile roll UFA $70 Treated fence posts 3-4x7 ft Rimbey Builders $4.49 each Electric fence battery UFA $300.00 - $900.00 Galvanized electric fence wire Home Depot $33 per 1/4 mile Solar panel UFA $150 Wire insulators UFA $12.50 each Game fence (8ft x 330ft) UFA $640

Audio/ Visual Deterrents There are many different devices manufactured to deter wildlife. Table 3 presents examples of just a few audio/visual devices that are available in Alberta.

10

Table 3. Costs (CAD) for audio/visual devices to deter livestock predation by coyotes (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Sentinel Strobe Repellent Amazon.ca $30 - $70 Propane cannon Margosupplies.com $600 Floodlight Acklands-Grainger $20 - $600

4.2 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Culling and Shooting To use a firearm, individuals must be properly instructed and licensed. It is popular practice to entice nuisance coyotes into areas where they can be easily shot. The type of lure and firearm used is based on personal preference; however, popular firearms used for coyotes include .223, .220 and .243 caliber rifles (Table 4).

Table 4. Costs (CAD) for lethal management of coyotes through calling and shooting (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Non-restricted Canadian Firearm Safety course Safe Alberta Firearms Educators $170 Possession and Acquisition License fee RCMP $60 .223, .220 or .243 rifle Cabelas.ca $700 - $2000 .223 centrefire ammunition Cabelas.ca $35 box of 20 .243 centrefire ammunition Cabelas.ca $45 box of 20 .220 centrefire ammunition Cabelas.ca $50 box of 20 Various scents Halfords, Edmonton $5 - $30 Mouth calls Cabela’s, Edmonton $15 - $70 Electronic calls Cabela’s, Edmonton $50 - $500

Trapping and Snaring There are many brands of traps and snare wire available for the use of nuisance coyote control. Below is a small sample of prices of traps and snares as well as costs associated with trapping or snaring.

Table 5. Costs (CAD) of approved traps and snares used to catch coyotes in Alberta (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Victor #3 Soft catch Foothold Halford's Edmonton $30.50 Victor #3 Soft catch 4 coiled Foot hold Halford's Edmonton $38.55 Snare wire, 7x7, 3/32” with loop Halford's Edmonton $49.35/ dozen Trapper Education Course Alberta Trapper's Association $373.00

11

Poison Poisons are controlled under the Pest Control Products Act of Canada. Please contact Beaver County for more information.

5. KEY PEOPLE/ RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/ MANAGEMENT METHODS  Dr. Colleen St Clair, Professor, Science, Biological Sciences, Z708 Biological Sciences, Office: 780-492-9685,Email: [email protected], [email protected]  Bill and Duncan Abercrombie, Animal Damage Control: A Division of Bushman Inc. Strathcona County, Alberta, Office: 780-998-0074, Toll free: 877-446-0204, Email: [email protected]

12

6. LITERATURE CITED [ASPCA] American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. c2015. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; [accessed 2015 July 17]. https://www.aspca.org. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2010. Coyote predation control manual and study guide 2010. Alberta (CA). Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development; [accessed 2015 June 25]. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/. Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. 2011. Livestock mortality management (disposal). Alberta (CA). Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development; [accessed 2015 July 30]. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/. Bekoff M, Gese EM. 2003. Coyote (Canis latrans). Wild mammals of North America: Biology management and conservation 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 467-481. [CDC] Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. [2011 Jan 11]. Atlanta (GA): Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Tularemia; [2011 Jan 11; accessed 2015 July 13]. http://www.cdc.gov/Tularemia/. Firearms Act, RSA 1995, c 39. Fox CH, Papouchis CM. 2005. Coyotes in our midst. Sacramento (CA): Born Free USA; accessed 2015 July 2]. http://www.projectcoyote.com/Coyotes_In_Our_Midst.pdf. Green J, Henderson RF, Collinge MD. 1994. “Coyotes”. The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage. Paper 34. [accessed 2015 June 3]. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmhandbook/34. Grey Wolf (Canis lupus). [date unknown]. The Wildlife Society. University of Northern British Columbia. Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) tracks; [date unknown; accessed 2015 July 8]. http://tws.unbc.ca/project/track/wolf.htm. Knowlton FF, Gese EM, Jaeger MM. 1999. Coyote depredation control: an interface between biology and management. J. Range Manage. 52: 398-412. Mastro LL. 2011. Life history and ecology of coyotes in the Mid-Atlantic States: A Summary of the scientific literature. Southeastern Naturalist. 10(4)721-730. [USDA] United States Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2002. The Electronic Guard: A Tool in Predation Control. January 2002 Factsheet. pp. 2. VerCauteren KC, Dolbeer RA, Gese EM. 2005. Identification and Management of Wildlife Damage. In: Braun, CE. editor. Techniques for Wildlife Investigations and Management. 6th ed. Bethesda (MD): The Wildlife Society; C 2005. pp. 740-778. Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10.

13

Hood 2016

APPENDIX E: STRIPED SKUNK MANAGEMENT PLAN

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 79 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 80

Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Management Report

http://cwf-fcf.org

Kalene Gould and Glynnis A. Hood Department of Science, Augustana Campus University of Alberta, Camrose, Alberta, T4V 2R3

Prepared for Beaver County

June 1, 2016 ©2016, Hood, University of Alberta

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY ...... 1 1.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.2 HABITAT AND RANGE ...... 1 1.3 BREEDING ...... 2 1.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY ...... 2 1.5 FORAGE REQUIREMENTS/ RESOURCES ...... 3 2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES ...... 3 2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES ...... 3 Infrastructure Damage ...... 3 Livestock/Crop Loss ...... 3 2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS ...... 3 2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH ...... 3 3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/SOLUTIONS ...... 4 3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 4 Exclusion ...... 4 Removal of Food Sources ...... 4 Repellents ...... 5 3.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 5 Trapping ...... 5 Shooting ...... 5 4. COSTS ...... 6 4.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 6 Exclusion ...... 6 Removal of Food Sources ...... 6 Repellents ...... 6 4.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 6 Trapping ...... 6 Shooting ...... 7 5. KEY PEOPLE/ RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/ MANAGEMENT METHODS ...... 7 REFERENCES ...... 8 APPENDIX A: BEAVER COUNTY SKUNK TRAP: TRAINING CHECKLIST ...... 9

i

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for materials for excluding skunks (2015)...... 6

Table 2. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for repellents for skunk management (2015)...... 6

Table 3. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for traps for live- and kill-trapping skunks (2015). . 7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Current Range of the striped skunk. Image from: www.nhptv.org...... 2

ii

1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

1.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Size: The striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) is similar in size to a domestic cat once adulthood is reached. The total body length is generally between 54 and 79 cm, with the tail accounting for almost a third of this length. An adult will weigh between 1.9 and 4.2 kg, depending on time of the year and gender (Pattie and Fisher 1999). Colour: The distinct white lateral stripes on a black glossy body are a familiar to many people. White markings extend to the end of a bushy tail, which is a mixture of black and white hair (Pattie and Fisher 1999). This distinct coloration is an example of aposematic coloring: used to warn predators and other animals of their strong-smelling chemical defense. However, skunks will often use a variety of warning signals, such as putting their tail up in the air or hissing, to indicate their presence and only spraying as a last resort to conserve energy (Lariviere and Messier 1996). Difference between sexes: Although both male and female striped skunks have similar coloration, the males are approximately 10% larger than their female counterparts (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003).

1.2 HABITAT AND RANGE The striped skunk can be found throughout North America, including southern Canada, the majority of the United States and some parts of northern Mexico (Figure 1). A study in Tennessee conducted by Bixler and Gittleman (2000) determined that the sizes of home ranges for striped skunks varied only with season and body weight, with larger home ranges in the spring and for larger individuals. However, other studies have found that geographic area and sex can also play a role in distribution (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). Striped skunks can thrive in a variety of habitat types, such as grasslands, wetlands, farmland and urban areas; however, forest-edge zones are preferred. Foraging and denning habitats can also vary from each other (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003).

1

http://www.nhptv.org Figure 1. Current Range of the striped skunk. Image from: www.nhptv.org.

1.3 BREEDING Time of year: Breeding typically occurs between mid-February to mid-April when the females enter estrous for 9 to 10 days. The male striped skunks are polygamous and attempt to breed with multiple females; however, the females will fight any male that tries to copulate with her after she has been successfully bred (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). Number of young: Litter sizes range between 2 and 10 young with an average of 5 to 7 (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). Number of clutches or litters: Typically, a female striped skunk will have one litter annually, although some individuals will have two litters per year (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). Dens or nests: The type of den used by the striped skunk depends on season, sex, age and condition of the individual. For example, winter dens tend to be used from November to March, with the animals moving into natal and summer resting sites during warmer months (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). A study by Lariviere and Messier (1998) determined that natal dens were most likely located on farmsteads in underground burrows or holes underneath buildings, whereas cropland was not used for both summer resting sites and natal dens despite its large availability.

1.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY Striped skunks typically live 2 to 3.5 years in the wild; nevertheless, they have been known to live up to 10 years in captivity (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003).

2

1.5 FORAGE REQUIREMENTS/ RESOURCES Striped skunks are omnivores, meaning they eat both plant and animal matter. The diet of a skunk is highly dependent on the time of year. During spring and summer months, the majority of food intake is comprised of insects, such as bees, grasshoppers and various larvae, along with fruit, small mammals and grains. However, during the fall, with decreasing insect populations, the diet is composed of fruit, small mammals, carrion, grains and nuts, insects and vegetation (Pattie and Fisher 1999, Rosatte and Lariviere 2003).

2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES

2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES

Infrastructure Damage Damage can be caused to lawns, golf courses and gardens when the striped skunk digs in the ground to search for grubs and other insects (Knight 1994).

Livestock/Crop Loss Although the striped skunk eats insects that would otherwise harm agricultural crops, they have also been known to raid beehives, where they consume the bees and destroy the hive (Knight 1994, Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). Striped skunks will also eat poultry, although typically they feed on eggs rather than kill the fowl (Knight 1994). In general, more information is needed regarding the economic damage created by striped skunks, as well as their overall ecological benefits.

2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS Striped skunks carry many diseases that can affect domestic animals, such as dogs and cats, including rabies, canine distemper virus, and infectious canine hepatitis. It is recommended to confine domestic pets during the night to avoid transmission of disease or the noxious odor that results from being sprayed (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003).

2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH When frightened or threatened, skunks can release a chemical deterrent that, aside from a lingering odor, can also irritate the eyes, nose and cause nausea (Alberta Environment and Parks 2014). Striped skunks are a vector of rabies, which is a viral disease that can be transferred to humans via the bite of an infected animal. Once symptoms of this disease begin to appear (typically one to three months after contact) it becomes a fatal condition. Abnormal skunk behaviour, such as tameness, activity during daylight or extreme aggression should be evaded and reported immediately (Acorn 1996). Striped skunks can also carry other types of diseases with the potential to affect human health such as canine distemper virus (leptospirosis) and tularemia (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003).

3

3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/SOLUTIONS In general, proactive measures to prevent skunks from establishing themselves in an area can reduce the presence of these species. Despite the reputation of the striped skunk as a nuisance species, these animals have the ability to consume large quantities of insects that could otherwise harm agricultural crops. This trait could result in a net benefit to landowners, a fact that should be considered before their removal (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). The striped skunk is considered a nuisance animal under the Agricultural Pests Act (2000), which allows landowners to remove the animals and dens on their land at will.

3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Exclusion Exclusion is a method used to prevent skunks from entering potential denning areas (e.g. underneath buildings and porches), which involves eliminating entrances to these locations. Before sealing entrances with lumber or a mesh screen (5 cm or less in diameter), one must ensure there are no skunks currently living in the space. If there are animals present, it is best to seal all entrances except for the area suspected to be the main entrance. To confirm the exit of a skunk from the area, one can dust flour or some other powder outside of the entrance and periodically check for tracks once it is dark. Once the skunk is no longer inside, one can seal this main entrance as well. The next day, one should open this entrance and repeat the procedure to allow any other skunks to vacate the space. Alternatively, one can hinge a board so it covers the entrance that will allow animals to leave, but not allow re-entry of the area. Once one suspects that no more animals are present, it is important to seal the entrance firmly. When sealing entrances, it is suggested to bury a mesh screen approximately 15 cm below the surface to prevent digging, as well as tightly secure all openings. Note that young skunks can be present in a natal den from May to August. To prevent den abandonment and starvation of the young, this method is not suggested during this period (Acorn 1996). Skunks can also be excluded from accessing poultry coops and beehives to deter egg and bird predation. To help protect a coop, one should fence runs and areas surrounding the coop with a fencing that extends about 0.3 m below the surface to deter digging. It is also beneficial to contain the fowl within a closed coop overnight for extra protection. Elevating beehives 1 m above the ground and fencing general hive locations can also discourage skunks from consuming the bees (Acorn 1996, Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). Striped skunks are able to utilize many different objects for den locations, such as brush piles, stacked lumber, old automobiles, abandoned buildings, and more. Maintaining a clutter-free yard can help discourage skunk presence (Acorn 1996).

Removal of Food Sources Removing food sources is similar to the exclusion method because it creates a habitat that is less desirable for skunks. Insect control on lawns can help avert skunks from digging to find

4 grubs and other invertebrates (Rosatte and Lariviere 2003). Pet food, garbage and compost should not be accessible to skunks and should be stored in either secure containers or inside (Acorn 1996).

Repellents The use of lights, sounds and chemical deterrents can be used to discourage skunks from entering a specific area temporarily; however, other methods are required to fully alleviate the problem. Examples of easily accessible chemical deterrents include moth balls and ammonia soaked rags, which should be kept away from children (Acorn 1996).

3.2 LETHAL METHODS In Alberta Wildlife Act (2000), the striped skunk is a non-licensed wildlife species and, therefore, can be trapped or hunted year-round by a property owner who does not hold a trapping permit on his/her private land, or an individual who has been authorized to trap on that land. Animal control companies can also be contracted to remove striped skunks.

Trapping As opposed to other trap varieties, live traps are recommended when dealing with striped skunks. Live traps can be purchased from hardware stores, borrowed from the County or constructed at home. Traps typically consist of a single entrance and a door that closes once triggered by the skunk. It might be preferable to use an enclosed trap lined with plywood or another material, which will limit the risk of skunks spraying inside the trap; however, skunks typically do not spray in confined spaces. To encourage use, live traps should be baited with a food attractive to the skunks (e.g. sardines or wet cat food). Once an animal has been caught and identified as a skunk, the animal may be translocated and released or humanly euthanized. Methods of euthanizing captured skunks include shooting or drowning by submergence into water. The associated training checklist given by Beaver County once a trap is rented is in Appendix A.

Shooting Shooting is another lethal method that can be used to control skunks. This method is most effective during dawn and dusk (Acorn 1996). Regulations must be followed regarding firearm usage, including:

 Section 52(1) of the Wildlife Act: “No person shall discharge a weapon or cause a projectile from a weapon to pass within 200 yards of nay occupied building”. This regulation does not including occupants of that land or persons authorized by the landowner.  Having a current Possession and Acquisition License (P.A.L.) and taken the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.

5

4. COSTS

4.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Exclusion Costs for exclusion is dependent on the size of the area to be sealed and the preferred materials used. Table 1 provides a sample costs for mesh wire that would be suitable for this project. One must ensure the type of fencing used has a strong enough gauge to deter skunks and hole with a diameter of 5 cm or less.

Table 1. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for materials for excluding skunks (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) 5” x 1” x 30” x10’ 16ga galvanized welded fence Home Hardware $28.99

Removal of Food Sources Costs associated with the removal of food sources to deter striped skunks vary depending on the activity. For example, storing pet food indoors has no monetary costs, whereas purchasing an insecticide or a sturdier garbage container will have an associated cost. Natural and chemical insecticides are available on the market and research into the variety that will best suit personal needs is encouraged.

Repellents Repellents only work as a temporary solution for managing skunk problems; therefore, other management methods will be required. Below are possible chemical repellents that can be used to discourage skunk presence momentarily.

Table 2. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for repellents for skunk management (2015). Item Location Cost (CAD) Naphthalene moth balls Walmart $4.97 Frank ammonia all-purpose cleaner 1.8 L Canadian Tire $2.39

4.2 LETHAL METHODS

Trapping There are many varieties of live traps available on the market suitable for the control of striped skunk. Table 3 provides some models as examples. Traps can be borrowed from Beaver County for a maximum of one week with a deposit that is refunded if the trap is returned on time and in the same condition it was when issued to the landowner. A live trap can also be built by hand with blueprints available on many online sites.

6

Table 3. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for traps for live- and kill-trapping skunks (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) 1 week rental from Beaver County Beaver County, AB $100 refundable deposit Havahart Large 1-Door Live Animal Cage Trap Home Depot $49.97

Shooting The type and price of firearm used will vary depending on individual requirements. Make sure the correct P.A.L. licence is obtained (restricted, non-restricted or prohibited for the type of firearm to be used).

5. KEY PEOPLE/ RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/ MANAGEMENT METHODS  Alberta Environment and Parks, Main Floor, Great West Life Building, 9920 108 Street, Edmonton Alberta Canada T5K 2M4,  Bill and Duncan Abercrombie, Animal Damage Control: A Division of Bushman Inc. Strathcona County, Alberta, Office: 780-998-0074, Toll free: 877-446-0204, Email: [email protected]

7

REFERENCES Acorn B. 1996. Biology and control of skunks. [place of publication unknown]: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex4663 Alberta Environment and Parks. 2014 Feb 20. [place of publication unknown]: Alberta Environment and Parks. Skunks; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish- wildlife/human-wildlife-conflict/skunks.aspx Agricultural Pests Act, RSA 2000, c A-8. Bixler A, Gittleman JL. 2000. Variation in home range and use of habitat in the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Journal of Zoology. 251: 525–533. Knight JE. 1994. Prevention and control of wildlife damage: skunks. Lincoln (NE): University of Nebraska-Lincoln; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. p. 6. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=icwdmhandb ook Lariviere S, Messier F. 1996. Aposematic behaviour in the striped skunk, Mephitis mephitis. Ethology. 102(8): 986–992. Lariviere S, Messier F. 1998. Denning ecology of the striped skunk in the Canadian prairies: implications for waterfowl nest predation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 35: 207–213. Pattie D, Fisher C. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Edmonton (AB): Lone Pine Publishing. Rosatte R, Lariviere S. 2003. Skunks. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and conservation. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 692–707. Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10.

8

APPENDIX A: BEAVER COUNTY SKUNK TRAP: TRAINING CHECKLIST

9

10

Skunk Trap – Training Checklist SETTING PROCEDURES:

 Lift door lock  Push spring loaded door closure frame back so that it sits flat against the trap door  To set the trigger, lift bottom of trap door up and engage trigger rod into the raised tab.  Place bait behind trip pan.

TRAPPING TIPS

 Trap must be placed on a firm flat surface  Make sure that trap cannot roll over  The use of gloves will eliminate the human odor  Good bait: canned fished-flavored cat food or bread coated with peanut butter, sardines and chicken entrails  Check trap regularly  A canvas should be used to cover the trap before setting it to reduce the chances of the skunk discharging its scent.

RELEASE OR KILL ONCE CAUGHT

 If released transport it at least 10 miles and release in a habitat far from human dwellings; however, consider this may cause a problem for someone else.  If killing - gently lower the trap in a tank of water to drown. You can also shoot the animal; however, amateurs should expect a scent discharge.

TRAP RETURN REQUIREMENTS:

 Ensure that trap is washed and clean when returned

11

Hood 2016

APPENDIX F: NORTH AMERICAN BEAVER MANAGEMENT PLAN

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 81 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 82

Beaver (Castor canadensis) Management Report

Photo: G.A. Hood

Allison Rodvang and Glynnis A. Hood Department of Science, Augustana Campus University of Alberta, Camrose, Alberta, T4V 2R3

Prepared for Beaver County

June 1, 2016 ©2016, Hood, University of Alberta

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY ...... 1 1.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ...... 1 1.2 HABITAT AND RANGE ...... 1 1.3 BREEDING ...... 2 1.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY ...... 3 1.5 FORAGE REQUIREMENTS/ RESOURCES ...... 3 2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES ...... 3 2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES ...... 3 Infrastructure Damage ...... 3 Livestock/Crop Loss ...... 4 2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS ...... 4 2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH ...... 4 Giardiasis ...... 4 Tularemia ...... 4 3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/SOLUTIONS ...... 4 3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 4 Wire Mesh Cages ...... 4 Three-log Drain ...... 5 Flexible Pipe ...... 5 Culvert Guards ...... 6 Fencing Systems ...... 6 Dam Removal ...... 7 Video Monitoring ...... 7 Education ...... 7 3.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 8 Shooting ...... 8 Trapping ...... 8 Winter Trapping ...... 9 3.3 COMBINATION OF METHODS ...... 10 4. COSTS ...... 10 4.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 10 Pond Levelling Devices ...... 11 i

Dam Removal ...... 11 Video Monitoring ...... 11 4.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 12 Trapping ...... 12 5. KEY PEOPLE/RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/MANAGEMENT METHODS ...... 13 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ...... 14 APPENDIX A: POND LEVELLERS ...... 17 APPENDIX B: POND LEVELLERS COST BREAK-DOWN ...... 27

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Certified traps regulated for use by the Government of Alberta (ABGOV 2015)...... 9 Table 2. Costs and Alberta suppliers for culvert guards and fencing systems. All costs are for 2015...... 10 Table 3. Material costs for one pond-leveller installation (approx. $580.00, 2014 and 2015). Tools and equipment used at every install are included in Appendix B, and total approximately $1800...... 11 Table 4. Cost (CAD) by method and maintenance requirements for dam removal for beaver management (2015)...... 11 Table 5. Costs and materials for video-monitoring of beavers for management and research purposes (from Bloomquist and Nielsen 2008)...... 12

Table 6. Costs and purchase locations for ice trapping supplies (2015)...... 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of current distribution of beaver (Castor canadensis) in North America. From: http://icwdm.org/handbook/rodents/beavers.asp...... 2 Figure 2. Diagram of non-lethal three-log drain. From https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420- 202/420-202.html ...... 5

Figure 3. Diagram of fencing system with extended pipe (From: USDA 2005)...... 7 Figure 4. Baited Conibear© winter trap design. From: http://www.trap-anything.com/ice- trapping-beaver.html...... 10

ii

1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

1.1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Size: Adult beavers are the largest rodents in North America and can weigh between 16 to 31.5 kg, and measure up to 120 cm in length (Baker and Hill 2003). Colour: Colouration of this species is variable and pelts can be reddish, chestnut, almost black, and yellowish-brown. The flanks, abdomen, and cheeks often are a lighter colour than the back (Baker and Hill 2003). Difference between sexes: Beavers lack obvious external genitalia, which makes it difficult, to identify the gender of a beaver in the field. However, females have four urogenital openings, and those about to give birth have four pectoral mammae, which are visible in the late spring and early summer. In contrast, males have three urogenital openings and by palpating the lower abdominal region one can detect the os penis or testes. However, this method can sometimes be unreliable, which means the only way to determine the sex of a young female beaver is through the absence of the os penis or testes, unless they are lactating. Anal gland secretion (AGS) is a relatively new method of determining the difference between male and female beavers of all ages, and differences are found in colour and viscosity. AGS from male North American beaver is brown and viscous, while AGS from females was whitish and less viscous (Schulte et al. 1995).

1.2 HABITAT AND RANGE Prior to European settlement, the beaver occupied the subarctic regions of Canada south of the tundra to the north. They also extend as far north as the mouth of the Mackenzie River in the Northwest Territories (Baker and Hill 2003). Their range also extends from the Pacific to Atlantic oceans in the United States and Canada, and as far south as the Colorado River and Rio Grande River in Mexico (Baker and Hill 2003). Following near eradication during the fur trade, beavers have recolonized much of their historic range, where possible (Figure 1). In some areas, however, it has been difficult due to the loss of an estimated 260,000 km2 of wetlands in the United States (Baker and Hill 2003). The historic range of the beavers encompasses most of the drylands of western North America and wetland habitats including: streams, rivers, wetlands, sloughs, backwaters, side channels, as well as isolated spring-fed wetlands and riparian wetlands of large rivers (Gibson and Olden 2014). The beaver is known as an ecosystem engineer because it modifies the hydrology, geology, vegetation, invertebrate and fish communities of any environment it occupies (Jones et al. 1994, Hood and Larson 2015). Upon colonizing a site, a beaver will begin to build a dam by arranging sediment, rocks, and sticks perpendicular to the flow of water to expand the volume and surface area of the upstream pond. Bank dens and lodges are also constructed by beavers. Bank dens are often built underneath tree roots or large shrubs to offer stability for the roof, 1 and are most commonly built in rivers or deep lakes. They have an underwater entrance, holes on the surface to allow air exchange, and a nesting area on top. Lodges can be built in shallow open water, or can be found on the banks of waterbodies, in which case they are considered bank lodges. “Signs of an occupied lodge include fresh mud, cut branches and, in mid-summer to fall, the presence of a food cache (Baker and Hill 2003, Bromley and Hood 2013). Dams built by beavers raise water levels, which then provide the following benefits to beavers: they provide protection from predators as the beaver can dive to safety, allow for efficient travel routes between foraging areas, ensure entrances to lodges remain underwater which provides further protection from terrestrial predators, and, in the winter months in cold climates, maintain a liquid layer below the ice layer (Baker and Hill 2003).

Figure 1. Map of current distribution of beaver (Castor canadensis) in North America. From: http://icwdm.org/handbook/rodents/beavers.asp.

1.3 BREEDING Beavers are monogamous mammals whose colonies usually consist of a single adult pair, two or more juveniles, and two or more kits (young-of-year) (Baker and Hill 2003). They will mate with other beavers after the loss of a mate, although more research is required in this aspect of beaver biology. Time of year: Beavers breed in the winter and give birth in late spring, where a typical gestation period is 100 days (Baker and Hill 2003). Number of young: One to four per year (Baker and Hill 2003).

2

Number of clutches or litters: A beaver colony consists of one mating pair, young from the present year, and young from the previous year. The litter size for a beaver is about two to four, where large litters are often associated with better quality habitat and a heavier mother (Baker and Hill 2003). Dens or nests: Beavers construct bank dens or lodges to offer protection from predators, attract mates, and raise young (Baker and Hill 2003).

1.4 LIFE EXPECTANCY Age determination in deceased beavers is done through characteristics of tooth eruption and annual cementum layers. Determining age in live beavers is less accurate and involves obtaining scull and weight measurements, upon which they are placed into three age classes: kits, yearlings, and > 2 year olds (adults). (Baker and Hill 2003).

1.5 FORAGE REQUIREMENTS/ RESOURCES Beavers prefer easily digestible trees including: alder Alnus sp., ash Fraxinus sp., birch Betula sp., cherry Prunus sp., hazel Corylus sp., maple Acer sp., mountain ash Sorbus sp., oak Quercus sp., poplar Populus sp., and willow Salix sp. (Rosell et al. 2005), although their forage selection can be very broad (Hood and Bayley 2009).

2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES

2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES

Infrastructure Damage Beavers cause unwanted flooding by dam building and blocking culverts, which can damage residential properties, roads, and railroads (Taylor and Singleton 2014). Compensation to trappers and facility repairs (e.g., culverts and roads) can account for $125,000 per year to $4,900 per incident, respectively (Mensing et al. 1998, Jensen et al. 2001), although in many cases, these costs have been poorly documented. Environmental Damage A study in Minnesota found that each beaver in a colony of six felled almost 1.300 kg/ha/year of woody plant, which decreased the above ground biomass by over 40% at the pond after six years of foraging (Johnston and Naiman 1990). Some studies report that approximately 1/3 of cut stems are used by beavers for dam and lodge construction, while the remaining stems are unused. (see Rosell et al. 2005). Studies completed in North America suggest beaver foraging can significantly alter the composition of riparian vegetation from preferred to non-preferred species (Hood and Bayley 2009). By continually foraging mid and early successional stages, light penetration increases and competition for soil decreases, thereby increasing the net primary productivity of less preferred

3 woody species. In these situations, it is possible that preferred species could be replaced by less palatable shrub communities (Rosell et al. 2005).

Livestock/Crop Loss Beaver dams expand the riparian zone by increasing the frequency and magnitude of flooding events, which could then impact adjacent agricultural crops.

2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS There is little documented concern for effects on domestic animals caused by beavers relative to zoonotic diseases.

2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH

Giardiasis This disease, caused by a flagellate protozoan known as Giardia lamblia, lives in the intestines of its host. The parasite begins as a dormant cyst, and then progresses to the reproductive stage, upon which time it becomes infectious. Transmission can occur through consumption of water contaminated with feces containing cysts, or through physical contact with contaminated feces. This disease is asymptomatic; therefore, precaution should be taken to avoid untreated water and wildlife.

Tularemia This disease is caused by the bacteria Francisella tularensis, and is thought to be a significant cause of mortality in beaver and muskrat populations (Labzoffsky and Sprent 1952). Humans can contract the disease by coming in contact with the carcass or fur of a dead animal, inhaling hairs of the infected animal, eating undercooked meat, drinking contaminated water, and being bitten by infected ticks (Labzoffsky NA, Sprent JA. 1952). Symptoms in humans include: excessive perspiration, fever, vomiting, nausea, headache, muscle pain and generalized fatigue, which appear within two to three days after infection. Consultation with a health professional should occur immediately after any symptoms appear.

3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/SOLUTIONS

3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Wire Mesh Cages Even if flooding and damage to infrastructure is not an issue, beavers require the use of wood for lodge and dam construction, and can therefore cause damage to tree stands. Their tree cutting can also pose a potential danger for human safety and infrastructure stability if a gnawed tree were to fall. The simplest and most effective solution to prevent a felled tree is to encircle the tree with a wire mesh cage. The wire mesh should be quite heavy (6 gauge) to

4 prevent the beaver from chewing through it, while the openings between the wire should be equal to or less than 6” x 6”. When encircling the tree, the cage should be one to two feet larger in diameter than the trunk and extend three to four meters above the ground to prevent the beaver from climbing over (Miller and Yarrow 1994).

Three-log Drain Three long (10’ to 16’) logs are placed perpendicular through a dam forming a triangle (Figure 2). Green sticks are placed on the bottom two logs to support the top log while allowing water to flow through. In addition, the logs can be wrapped in sheet metal for enhanced stability. This method was one of the first pond levelling devices and builds on the theory that beavers avoid chewing submerged hardwood logs (Taylor and Singleton 2014).

Figure 2. Diagram of non-lethal three-log drain. From https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420- 202/420-202.html

Flexible Pipe Implementing a pond leveling device takes place over four stages. The first stage involves assessing the dam and upstream pond to determine the appropriate location for a pond leveller is perhaps the most important stage. Sites are usually chosen based on severity of potential or current damage to crops or infrastructure, and if multiple levellers need to be installed on the same reach, then the dam downstream is given priority. This approach is to ensure that, in the

5 event of releasing an upstream dam, the downstream dam is able to absorb the impact of additional water (Hood pers. comm.). The second phase begins by building a pond leveling device, which requires a single walled 12” corrugated pipe, and a double walled 12” corrugated pipe, as well as #13 hog fencing (from United Farmers of Alberta - UFA) to build a cage around the pipe’s water intake, and a smaller cage on the outflow area to protect the end of the pipe. The purpose of the double walled pipe is to dampen the noise of running water, while the purpose of the cages on either end of the pipe system is to deter the beaver from damming (Hood pers. comm.). To aid in sinking the pipe, small holes can be drilled in the tubing. Cutting a portion of the end of the pipe will increase inflow and further dampen the noise of running water. The third phase occurs before putting the pipe system through the dam. The dam first must be broken to the appropriate height; the depth the pipe rests in the beaver dam will ultimately determine the maximum water level of the upstream pond, thus careful planning and consideration of beaver behavioural biology should be given. Once the dam is broken to the desired height, the two lengths of pipe (attached by a coupler) can be placed in the broken portion, the caged intake end sunk to the pond bottom, and then the exposed pipe covered with mud, sticks and debris to hold the pipe in place. However, the majority of this job can be left to the beavers. The fourth and final stage requires periodic monitoring and maintenance to ensure the pond leveler is functioning properly. Additional information on pond leveler devices and instructions on the installation process can be found in Appendix A.

Culvert Guards This method prevents beavers from damming culvert openings; however, it requires regular maintenance around the guard to ensure beavers do not build a dam on the guard. It is also a good idea to ensure it is placed on the upstream portion of the culvert, and attached to a strong chain to the culvert guard so it can be lifted for maintenance, or dam removal (Taylor and Singleton 2014). The design includes welding ½ to ¾ inch steel rods (rebar) to a metal plate at a maximum of six inch intervals. Next, support posts are welded to both ends of the metal plate to enhance stability around the culvert. To install, the support posts and steel rods are then driven approximately six inches into the ground (USDA 2005).

Fencing Systems Culvert fences can be built upstream of a culvert to exclude beavers from the problem site (Figure 3). The fence can be built in different shapes (rectangular, semicircular, square, and trapezoidal), and is made with heavy-gauge wire mesh and metal or wooden posts (Figure 3). It is also important to include a floor in the design so as to block beavers from tunneling underneath (USDA 2005). Fence systems should be implemented at low risk areas where water flow is generally low, or where a pipe system is not possible. To construct, steel hog fencing should be cut in the desired shape, and then attached to steel posts. A floor can also be attached using the same fencing and hog rings (Hood pers. comm.). The recommended distance

6 that the fence should extend on either side is approximately 10 to 20 feet. For additional security, or if the fence is being dammed, a portion of a double walled corrugated pipe can be attached and extended to another fenced area (USDA 2005).

Figure 3. Diagram of fencing system with extended pipe (From: USDA 2005).

Dam Removal Dams causing unwanted flooding can be released through manual means such as removal by hand, blasting with explosives, or digging with a backhoe. These methods allow water to flow through the dam temporarily until beavers (if present) repair the dam. Dam removal can be repeated as needed to maintain a desired water level, or be paired with lethal methods for a longer-lasting flow (USDA 2005).

Video Monitoring Remote videography using miniature camera systems can be useful when studying the behaviour and demographics of mammals that have burrows or dens. Wildlife biologists benefit from population assessment and behavioral studies of focal species to aid population modeling and management options (Bloomquist and Nielson 2008). The remote videography system implemented by Bloomquist and Nielsen (2008) was beneficial because the information collected provided a better method for improving their understanding of beavers, where other observation methods were unable to fully capture their behaviour Although videography is not a precise management solution, it can be a beneficial first step to designing management plans to better understand animal behaviour, the specific ecosystem niche of an animal, and its life history (breeding patters, breeding season, clutch size, etc.).

Education Education on ecosystem services provided by beavers can encourage landowners to tolerate beavers in spite of damages (Dewas et al. 2011). Education programs can include written

7 materials (e.g., brochures, public presentations, videography, websites, and social media, to name a few). Using educational presentations prior to management actions can help with public engagement and support.

3.2 LETHAL METHODS The Alberta Government’s Trapping Regulations states that: “Beaver may be hunted and trapped, without a licence and during all seasons, on privately owned land by the owner or occupant of the land, or by a resident with written permission from the owner or occupant of the land” (ABGOV 2015). However, it is important to remember that any lethal measure, especially trapping, should include formal training and certification (2015 conversation between Duncan Abercrombie and A. Rodvang).

Shooting Under Section 24 (2) of the Wildlife Act, a licence is not required for hunting a “nuisance” animal. However, the shooter must be aware of one’s proximity to other dwellings. Under Section 52 (1) of the Wildlife Act “No person shall discharge a weapon or cause a projectile from a weapon to pass within 200 years of any occupied building.” This provision does not include owners or occupants of that land or persons authorized by the landowner. In accordance with the Firearms Act, individuals must pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and hold a valid Possession and Acquisition Licence in order to use a firearm (Firearms Act 1995, Wildlife Act 2000, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development 2010).

Trapping The Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) (an international agreement between Canada, the European Union, and Russia) prohibits the use of land-based leg/foothold restraining traps for beavers (ABGOV 2015). A complete list of allowable traps for beavers is provided in Table 1. When trapping, the methods used should meet or exceed the standards established under the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and included in the Agreement on International Human Trapping Standards (The City of Red Deer [cited 2015]). Trapping is the most effective method for eliminating beaver damage to the landscape, and it is relatively inexpensive (Fur Institute of Canada 2015). Trapping can also play a valuable role in monitoring wildlife and conservation research (Fur Institute of Canada 2015). However, removal of unwanted beavers by landowners can be difficult as the newly vacated site can act as a sink for other source populations of beavers, thereby rendering shooting, snaring and trapping a continued and timely process. It is important to remember that this method can greatly influence the dynamics of beaver populations (Baker and Hill 2003). In many jurisdictions, the typical annual harvest rate is between 20 and 30% of the population (approximately 1.0 to 1.5 beavers per colony per year). Because beaver populations are sensitive to overharvesting due to relative low reproductive rates and maturity rates than other rodents, populations require close monitoring to avoid rapid declines (Baker and Hill 2003).

8

Body-gripping traps, such as Conibear® traps, are often used for semiaquatic mammals such as beavers and muskrat (Table 1), and are considered relatively humane due to their quick kill speed (Fur Institute of Canada 2015). They can be placed at the entrances to dams, lodges, runs or slides. However, caution should be taken as they are indiscriminate and remain a hazard to children, domestic animals, and non-target species (Braun 2005).

Table 1. Certified traps regulated for use by the Government of Alberta (ABGOV 2015).

Trap Make and Model Bélisle Classique 330 LDL C280 Magnum Sauvageau 2001-12 Bélisle Super X 280 LDL C330 Species Specific 330 Dislocator Half Magnum Bélisle Super X 330 LDL C330 Magnum Species Specific 440 Dislocator Half Magnum BMI 280 Body Gripper Rudy 280 Woodstream Oneida Victor Conibear 280 BMI 330 Body Gripper Rudy 330 Woodstream Oneida Victor Conibear 330 BMI BT 300 Bridger 330 Sauvageau 1000-11F Duke 330 Sauvageau 2001-8 LDL C280 Sauvageau 2001-11 Note: Traps can result in the death of non-target species; therefore, traps should be checked daily to allow possible release of non-target animals and to euthanize beavers if needed. When setting traps, it is recommended that extreme caution and warning be given to properties with children and domestic animals.

Winter Trapping Pre-season work is required to mark the entrances to the lodge, and channels that lead to the winter food supply. A chainsaw, ice saw, axe, or ice spud should be used to cut through the ice. Then, a mounting pole can be placed in the water with an attached and baited 330 Conibear© trap (Greenway N [date unknown]). The mounting pole should be long enough so it can dig into the ground for stability (Figure 4). A cross pole can then be attached outside of the water and on the surface of the ice to prevent the trap from moving. Once the trap design is completed, a straw or hay bale can be placed over the opening for insulation so the hole does not freeze over. The trap will be most effective if the set location is at the entrance of the lodge (Greenway N [date unknown]).

9

Figure 4. Baited Conibear© winter trap design. From: http://www.trap-anything.com/ice- trapping-beaver.html.

3.3 COMBINATION OF METHODS Taylor and Singleton (2014) suggest that beaver management focus on two main areas: exclusion and deception. This approach requires a combination of methods. Firstly, exclusion can include non-lethal methods (e.g., fencing) or lethal methods, and deception includes diverting beavers’ attention away from areas of concern (e.g., culverts) by using flow-through pipes situated far away from the culvert (e.g., pond levellers).

4. COSTS

4.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS All material used for non-lethal control methods can be obtained from local hardware and farm supply stores. Specific costs for culvert guards and fencing systems are in Table 2.

Table 2. Costs (CAD) and Alberta suppliers for culvert guards and fencing systems. All costs are for 2015.

Item Location Cost (CAD) Culvert Guard 15mm Rebar 3m/10’- Black The Home Depot $14.86 x 2 Steel Metal plate Rona $20.00 Fencing System 2 x 13 line 16’ hog fencing UFA, Camrose $77.70 sheet 4 x 7’ steel T-posts UFA, Camrose $37.76

10

Pond Levelling Devices Total cost to install a pond leveler device includes the following expenses: supplies, site/material preparation, and the installation (Table 3). Using the summer 2014 Beaver County Install Expenses spreadsheet as a reference, the cost of one installation can be expected to cost $800-$1600.

Table 3. Material costs (CAD) for one pond-leveller installation (approx. $580.00, 2014 and 2015). Tools and equipment used at every install are included in Appendix B, and total approximately $1800.

Item Cost (CAD) 7’ steel T-posts 4 @ $9.44 each = $37.76 13 line 16’ hog fencing sheet 2@ $38.85 each = $77.70 12” by 20’ single wall HDPE pipe $143.39 12” by 20’ double wall HDPE pipe $293.99 12” pipe coupler $26.24

Dam Removal Costs vary based on the severity of damming, and how frequently the dam needs to be broken (Table 4).Costs of common maintenance methods for clearing culverts and removing dams.

Table 4. Cost (CAD) by method and maintenance requirements for dam removal for beaver management (2015).

Method Cost by item (CAD) Total cost (CAD) Removal by hand $26/ hour $50 - $100/ visit Backhoe $140 - $300/ hour $280 - $600/ visit Blasting $26/ hour + $40 (explosives) $170/ visit

Video Monitoring Using the study by Bloomquist and Nielsen (2008), total cost for videography systems was $16,617 US Dollars (approx. $21,800 CAD in 2015), where the videography systems accounted for 92% of this total (Table 5). This number excludes the cost of labour and travel expenses. A total of 288 person-hours were needed to set up, maintain, view tapes, and enter data; 1.1 hours of behaviour and demographic data were collected for every one hour of human labour. (Bloomquist and Nielsen 2008).

11

Table 5. Costs (CAD)and materials for video-monitoring of beavers for management and research purposes (from Bloomquist and Nielsen 2008).

Item Cost (CAD) 2 burrow-probe camera systems $20,000 Camera repair and shipping $730 Videotapes $330 Batteries $260 Polyvinyl chloride piping $158 Post-driver and prybar $80 Camera housing and protection $80 Identification tag material $63 Camera stand $43 Camera cleaning kit $30 Television monitor $26

4.2 LETHAL METHODS

Trapping First time trappers must participate in a Standard Trapping Course. The Trapper Gord Wilderness College offers this mandatory course for first time trappers as well as follow up courses for seasoned trappers. The college is recognized all across North America, and upon completion of the Standard Trapping Course, participants are able to purchase either a resident or registered trapping license for Alberta. The course is 35-hours long, offered over a course of four days, and covers the following topics: (1) History and Development of the Industry; (2) Biology of Furbearers; (3) Required Equipment and Maintenance; (4) Preparation and Business Management; (5) Regulations; (6) Humane Harvesting and the Agreement on International Trapping Standards; (7) Fur Handling; (8) Fur Marketing; (9) Field Trips for Choosing Locations and Making Sets; (10) Disease and Biodiversity and; (11) Ethics and Public Relations. The cost of this course is $675.00 and the costs of basic supplies for ice trapping are in Table 6.

Table 6. Costs (CAD) and purchase locations for ice trapping supplies (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Conibear® trap Halford’s, Edmonton approx. $40.00 Ice chisel Halford’s, Edmonton $30.00 - $60.00 Attachable 4 ft. poles Canadian Tire, Camrose approx. $5.00

12

5. KEY PEOPLE/RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/MANAGEMENT METHODS  Dr. Glynnis Hood, Professor, University of Alberta, Augustana Campus, 780-679-1556  Bill and Duncan Abercrombie, Animal Damage Control: A Division of Bushman Inc. Strathcona County, Alberta, Office: 780-998-0074, Toll free: 877-446-0204, Email: [email protected]

13

6.0 LITERATURE CITED [ABGOV] Alberta Government. 2015. Alberta guide to trapping regulations. [accessed 2015 Jul 29]. Available from: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/Trapping-Regs-2014-15.pdf Becoming a trapper in Alberta. 2014. Debolt (AB): Trapper Gord Homestead and Survival; [accessed 2015 Jun 24]. http://trappergord.com/uncategorized/becoming-a-trapper-in- alberta/ Bloomquist CK, Nielsen CK. 2008. A remote videography system for monitoring beavers. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(4): 605–608. Bromley CK, Hood GA. 2013. Beaver (Castor canadensis) facilitate early access by Canada geese (Branta canadensis) to nesting habitat and open water in Canada’s boreal wetlands. Mammalian Biology 78: 73 – 77. Braun CE, editor. 2005. Techniques for wildlife investigations and management. 6th ed. Baltimore (MD): City Port Press. Dewas M, Herr J, Schley L, Angst C, Manet B, Landry P, Catusse M. 2012. Recovery and status of native and introduced beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis in France and neighbouring countries. Mammal Review 42(2): 144–165. Baker BW, Hill EP. 2003. Beaver: Castor canadensis. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): John Hopkins University Press. p. 288-310. Erlandsen SL, Sherlock LA, Januschka M, Schupp DG, F W Schaefer 3rd FW, Jakubowski W, W J Bemrick WJ. 1988. Cross-species transmission of Giardia spp.: inoculation of beavers and muskrats with cysts of human, beaver, mouse, and muskrat origin. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 54: 2777–2785. Fur Institute of Canada. 2015. Trapping in Canada: why trap? Ottawa (ON): Fur Institute of Canada; [accessed 2015 Jun 9]. http://www.fur.ca/TC_about_trapping.php Gibson PP, Olden JD. 2014. Ecology, management, and conservation implications of North American beaver (Castor canadensis) in dryland streams. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24: 391–409. Greenway N. [date unknown]. Ice trapping beaver; [accessed 2015 Jun 22]. http://www.trap- anything.com/ice-trapping-beaver.html Hood GA, Bayley SE. 2009. A comparison of riparian plant community response to herbivory by beaver (Castor canadensis) and ungulates in Canada’s boreal mixed-wood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 258: 1979–1989. Hood GA, Larson DG. 2015. Ecological engineering and aquatic connectivity: a new perspective from beaver-modified wetlands. Freshwater Biology 60: 198–208.

14

Hood GA, Yarmey N. 2015. Mitigating human-beaver conflicts through adaptive management. Prepared for Beaver County. Ryley, AB. University of Alberta, Camrose, AB. 69 pp. Jensen PG, Curtis PD, Lehnert ME, Hamelin DL. 2001. Habitat and structural factors influencing beaver interference with highway culverts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 654–664. Johnston CA, Naiman RJ. 1990. Browse selection by beaver: effects on riparian forest composition. Canadian Journal of Forest Restoration, 20, 1036–1043. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers Oikos 69: 373-386. Labzoffsky NA, Sprent JA. 1952. Tularemia among beaver and muskrat in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Medical Sciences1952, 30(3):250–255 Mensing DM, Galatowitsch SM, Tester JM. 1998. Journal of Environmental Management 53: 349–377. Miller JE, Yarrow GK. 1994. “Beavers” The Handbook: Prevention and Control of Wildlife Management. Paper 11. Lincoln (NB): University of Nebraska. Rosell F, Bozsér O, Collen P, Parker H. 2005. Ecological impact of beavers Castor fiber and Castor canadensis and their ability to modify ecosystems. Mammal Review 35(3&4): 248–276. Schulte BA, Muller-Schwarze D, Sun L. 1995. Using anal gland secretion to determine sex in beaver. The Journal of Wildlife Management 59(3): 614–618. The City of Red Deer. [date unknown]. Red Deer (AB): The City of Red Deer. City services: beaver management program; [date unknown; accessed 2015 Jun 29]. http://www.reddeer.ca/city-services/environment-and-conservation/your- community/living-with-wildlife/beaver-management-program/ [USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2005. How to keep beavers from plugging culverts. Missoula (MT): United States Department of Agriculture; [accessed 2015 Jun 29]. 30 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/t- d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf05772830/pdf05772830dpi300.pdf

15

16

APPENDIX A: POND LEVELLERS

17

18

Introduction to Research Project: Mitigating Human-Beaver Conflict Through Adaptive Management Traditionally, the solution to the flooding of roads and facilities by beavers is to remove the dam or remove the beavers, which is often not a permanent fix. Beavers build these dams to create a pond large enough to meet their basic needs, such as gathering food and building a lodge. Dr. Glynnis Hood, a professor at the University of Alberta Augustana Campus in Camrose, is leading an initiative to find more economical, long-lasting ways to deal with beaver flooding. Pond leveling devices are a relatively new innovation that mitigates beaver impacts by reducing flooding of private property and public infrastructure. The devices are a cost-effective and environmentally friendly method of beaver management because they lower water levels without constantly breaking dams, while enough water remains to support the plants and animals in the pond. Based on the success of the devices in the Blackfoot/ Cooking Lake Provincial Recreation Area, there is great potential to save money and prevent damages. Between 2011 and 2013, twelve pond leveler devices were installed in the park, and a cost- benefit analysis showed that the net benefit of installing these devices amounted to $81,519.09.

19

20

Instructions to build and install a pond leveling device From Hood and Yarmey 2015

Build a Pond Leveling Device 1) Build a round cage out of hog fencing that will protect the pipe intake area. - Roll one sheet of hog fencing into a circle, which will make the sides of the cage. - Overlap the ends of the fencing by 2 squares. Use hog rings to hold the ends together. - The opening with the smaller squares will be the top of the cage. - Cut a piece of fencing to fit the bottom of the cage, leaving ends hanging to be bent into the cage to help attach the bottom. Add hog rings to join the cage bottom to the sides as needed. - Cut down five horizontal wires of the side of the cage. Do this around the whole side of the cage, leaving sections 2-3 squares wide. Bend these sections into the centre of the cage at a 90 degree angle to the side of the cage. - Weave the ends of sections through each other. - Use hog rings to attach some of the sections together. - Cover the hole in the top of the cage with a small piece of additional hog fencing. - To save on hog rings weave and bend pieces of the fencing through other pieces - Note: ensure there are no stray wires poking out of the cage that can catch or snag.

2) Drill and saw perforations into the pipes to help them fill with water and sink more easily. Single walled 12” pipe - Drill 4 rows of holes down the length of the pipe using a 1/4” drill bit, drilling every second ridge. Double walled 12” pipe - make 4 cuts down the length of the pipe through only the outside wall of the pipe (the saw blade should be set to a shallow depth). - Drill 2 rows of holes using a 1/4” drill bit down the length of the pipe, drilling every second ridge through both layers of the pipe. - Make 1 cut from the end of the pipe to 9 ridges from the end, make a second cut of same length from same end of the pipe but opposite of first cut, make a third cut across the pipe (joining the two previous cuts) to finish cutting the slot and pull off the piece you have cut. 21

Prepare the Install Location 3) Assess the site to determine the desired water level and begin breaking the dam. - Blocked culverts and dams under bridges might take a while to clear. Therefore, doing this job a day or two before the actual install can make things a lot easier. When working with a dam blocking a large pond, it is best to release the water slowly over time to prevent any damage downstream. - Make a trench through the dam just wide enough to fit the pipe and as deep as you want the water level to be. - Tools such as pitch forks or hooks can be useful here, but hands are often the best beaver dam breaking tool.

Install Pond Leveling Device

4) Attach the double walled pipe to the cage. 5) Join the pipes. - Cut a 4 square x 4 square hole in the side - Bring the ends of the two pipes as close of the cage. together as possible. - Make the hole bigger by cutting the ends of - Wrap a coupler around the point where the the horizontal wire directly above the hole and pipes join. bending this piece inward - this piece can later - Use 4 zip ties to attach the pipes. be bent back against the pipe to secure it. - Cut off the hanging ends of the zip ties after - Drill 2 holes on each side of the pipe and 2 tightening them. holes on the bottom of the pipe using a 1/4” - Reinforce the coupler with 4 x 1 1/2” long drill bit. These will be used to wire the pipe to Robertson screws the cage - Thread a piece of doubled wire through each pair of holes and attach to cage. 22

6) Float or carry the cage and pipe system to an area with adequate water depth. - Before installing the device place 2 floats under each side of the cage parallel to the pipe. - Wrap a polypropylene rope around each end of each pair of floats and tie around the cage using a slip knot for quick release. - Position the cage so that the pipe is pushed all the way through the dam or into the culvert - The ideal location is about 30’ in front of the dam in the upstream pond in a deep, unobstructed area.

7) Submerge the cage into the water. - Untie all 4 ropes while holding the cage’s position on the water. - Push the 4 floats out at the same time while ensuring the cage remains upright and level as it sinks

23

8) As the pond leveling device is sinking, make sure the pipe is filling up with water and not floating on the surface. Fence posts, cinder blocks or large branches can be used to prevent the pipe from lifting up. - Sitting on the pipe and standing on the cage immediately after sinking the cage will fill the pipe with water and help to hold it down. - Cross 2 steel T-posts over the high point of the pipe and pound each post in and wire them together to hold the pipe underwater.

9) To further secure the pipe in place, rebuild the dam using the removed materials. Don’t worry too much about it being perfect. The beavers will come and do most of the work for you during the night!

24

10) Protect the culvert intake and/ or pipe outflow with hog fencing to prevent beavers from damming inside. At a culvert site, the culvert intake needs to be caged. In a dam site, the pipe outflow needs to be caged. a. Outflow - Building the outflow cage can require some creativity as every site is different. - There are cases where a standing fence is required or as shown in this picture, a fence may need to be built around a culvert. - Typical outflow cage: 4’ x 4’ hog fencing bent into a cylinder. - Cut down 1 horizontal wire of the side of the cage around the whole opening of the cage leaving sections 2-3 squares wide. Bend these sections into the centre of the cage at a 90 degree angle to the side of the cage to create a closed “cap” to the cylinder. - Drill holes into the outflow end of the pipe and thread wire through these holes to attach cage to pipe.

b. Culvert - Cut a panel of hog fencing to make a grate for the culvert opening - Use the panel to completely enclose the area where the pipe enters the culvert to prevent beavers from damming inside - Secure the grate by wiring it to a T- post on either side of the culvert opening

25

26

APPENDIX B: POND LEVELLERS COST BREAK-DOWN

27

28

Tools & Equipment (used at every install) *prices include GST at a rate of 5%

Item Cost (CAD) Bolt cutters Post pounder $31.49 Sledge hammer Fencing pliers Hog ring pliers Cordless drill $198.45 Drill bits Hack saw $31.49 Cordless circular saw $262.49 Rake/ hook Throw bag and first aid kit 4 polypropylene ropes Chest waders $146.95 each Dry suit $918.75 Work gloves $8.39 each Steel-toed rubber boots $75.00 each Zip ties $9.23 per package Smooth wire $5.99 per roll 1 ½” Robertson screws $10.28 per package Hog rings $9.99 per box______Total tools & equipment cost approx. $1800

29

Hood 2016

APPENDIX G: DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 83 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 84

White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Management Report

http://www.nature.org http://www.thehuntingbroker.com

Allison Rodvang and Glynnis A. Hood Department of Science, Augustana Campus University of Alberta, Camrose, Alberta, T4V 2R3

Prepared for Beaver County

June 1, 2016 ©2016, Hood, University of Alberta

WHITE-TAILED DEER: Also called: Virginia deer, whitetail

MULE DEER: Also called: black-tailed deer

Table of Contents 1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY ...... 1 1.1 WHITE-TAILED DEER ...... 1 Physical Description ...... 1 Habitat and Range ...... 1 Breeding ...... 2 Life expectancy ...... 3 Forage requirements/resources ...... 3 1.2 MULE DEER ...... 3 Physical Description ...... 3 Habitat and Range ...... 4 Breeding ...... 4 Life Expectancy...... 4 Forage Requirements/ Resources ...... 4 2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES ...... 5 2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES ...... 5 Structural Damage ...... 5 Livestock/Crop Loss ...... 5 2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS ...... 5 2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH ...... 5 Lyme Disease ...... 5 Deer-vehicle Collisions ...... 6 3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/SOLUTIONS ...... 6 3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 6 Habitat Modification ...... 6 Dispersion ...... 6 Non-electric Fencing ...... 6 Electric Fencing ...... 7 Repellents (taste-based, odour-based) ...... 7 Four-post Feeding Stations ...... 7 Dogs ...... 8 3.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 8

iii

Shooting ...... 8 4. COSTS ...... 10 4.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS ...... 10 Habitat Modification ...... 10 Dispersion and Repellents ...... 10 Fencing ...... 10 4.2 LETHAL METHODS ...... 10 Hunting ...... 10 5. KEY PEOPLE/ RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/ MANAGEMENT METHODS ...... 12 6. REFERENCES ...... 13

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Costs (CAD) of dispersion attractants and repellents for deer management (2015). .... 10

Table 2. Costs (CAD) of non-electric and electric fencing for deer management (2015)...... 10

Table 3. Costs (CAD) for lethal management of deer (2015)...... 11

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Distribution of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in North America. Source: Government of Manitoba (www.gov.mb.ca)...... 2

Figure 3. White-tailed deer using a four-post feeding station...... 8

Figure 2. Four-post feeding station...... 8

iv

1. GENERAL BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

1.1 WHITE-TAILED DEER

Physical Description Size: The size of white-tailed deer varies greatly due to its wide range of habitat across North America, and can also change depending on the time of year, habitat productivity, and anthropogenic effects (Miller et al. 2003). A typical female is approximately 90 cm at shoulder height, and can range between 90 and 140 pounds, while males can weigh between 140 and 200 pounds (Cook and Gray 2003). Colour: Adult white-tailed deer experience two complete molts in the spring (April-May) and fall (August-September). The spring and summer coat consists of short, thin hairs of a reddish- brown colour, while the winter coat is thicker, longer, and is brownish-grey in colour. White- tailed deer also have a characteristic white belly, chest, throat, and chin. The underside of the tail is also white. Fawns are born with a spotted coat to act as a camouflage against predators; however, this is shed around three to four months old as they grow a thicker winter coat (Cook and Gray 2003). Difference between sexes: Size of adult white-tailed deer is often a reliable way to distinguish between male and female deer. However, the most obvious difference between males and females is the presence of antlers on males. Male white-tailed deer grow a new set of antlers each spring, and they are shed in late winter (Cook and Gray 2003).

Habitat and Range White-tailed deer are found in every Canadian province, excluding Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island (Miller et al. 2003; Figure 1). A deer’s home range is defined as the area where activities such as feeding, breeding, and caring for fawns are carried out. It must be large enough to adequately provide for these needs, but small enough to provide necessary resources (e.g., food and range familiarity) for survival (Cook and Gray 2003). Typically, does have a home range of 300 to 600 acres, while bucks occupy an area two to four times that size (Cook and Gray 2003). In Alberta, white-tailed deer inhabit the prairies, parkland, foothills, mountains, and the boreal zone (Alberta Environment at Parks 2015).

1

Figure 1. Distribution of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in North America. Source: Government of Manitoba (www.gov.mb.ca).

Breeding Time of year: The time of year deer breed is determined by a chain of hormonal events that are initiated in response to shortening day lengths. Harsh winters, typical of northern climates, have a strong impact on fawning season; giving birth early in the spring can result in hypothermic conditions in fawns, whereas, late fawning might not leave enough time for weight gain and body growth prior to winter (Miller et al. 2003). Peak breading generally occurs in November, but begins in October and will extend until mid-December (Rosenberry et al. 2009). For approximately 24 hours, the females are in heat or estrous and receptive to breeding (Cook and Gray 2003). If the doe is not bred within this time, she will enter estrous again approximately 28 days later; this cycle will continue until she is bred successfully, or until the season is over (Cook and Gray 2003). Number of young: Number of young is often dependent on available nutrition and energy resources; however, typical number of young in white-tailed deer is between one and two fawns (Miller et al. 2003). Number of clutches or litters: Adult white-tailed deer of the opposite sex have very little contact throughout the year, excluding breeding season, during which time the male deer will remain with the doe for about 24 hours in an attempt to breed her. Outside of breeding season, does form groups that commonly include members of the same herd of similar age and social standing; a typical female group would include an adult doe, her fawn of the current year, and her female offspring from the year previous. Bucks are generally more social, and will form groups based on age, size, and strength (Cook and Gray 2003). Dens or nests: Although white-tailed deer do not have a specific den or nest, does will abandon their matrilineal group during fawning season, and remain alone to bear and rear offspring until 2

September or October (Rosenberry et al. 2009). Once born, the fawn remains hidden until it is two or three weeks old, upon which it can begin to accompany the doe in her daily activities (Cook and Gray 2003).

Life expectancy White-tailed deer have an approximate life span of 10 to 12 years (Cook and Gray 2003).

Forage requirements/resources Unlike cattle, deer are browsers, not grazers, meaning their mouths are highly developed for selective feeding. In the spring and early summer, white-tailed deer prefer to forage the leaves, buds and shoots of freshly emerging vegetation. During the fall, these plants become more difficult to digest, which means deer will often switch to agricultural crops and fruit-bearing plants (Cook and Gray 2003). The most essential nutrients for white-tailed deer are associated with protein and energy and, if resource availability is high, the preferred forage includes: browse, mast (hard and soft), and forbs. Soft mast is usually available in the summer months and includes fruit such as raspberries and cherries, while hard mast, such as acorns, becomes available in the fall (Miller et al. 2003).

1.2 MULE DEER

Physical Description Size: The average weight of male mule deer is 74 kg, while average weight of females is 59 kg. Average body length of males is 152 cm, while average body length of females is 142 cm. Average shoulder height for males and females respectively is 97cm and 91 cm. Mule deer have a stiff-legged gait, called “stotting”. The deer will use all four legs to propel them upwards of 60 cm and are able to cover a distance up to five meters (Mackie et al. 2003). Colour: Mule deer molt twice annually: once in the spring, and once in the fall. During the winter, their coats are dark grey and thicker due to an undercoat that grows from September to January. In May and early June, they begin to shed this coat, which is replaced with a reddish- coloured coat that remains throughout summer. Mule deer also have a characteristic white rump that remains white throughout the year. Fawns are born with spotted backs, and are slightly darker than white-tailed deer fawns, which are known to have a lighter, orange pelage. On average, mule deer fawns lose their spotted backs after 86 days (Mackie et al. 2003). Difference between sexes: At about three months of age, male fawns start to develop buddings of antlers, which are shed annually in the late winter. Typical antlers develop dichotomously, with yearlings averaging two tines per side, and adults averaging four tines per side (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989).

3

Habitat and Range Mule deer are frequent throughout North America and are found as far south as Arizona and as far north as Yukon Territory (Mackie et al. 2003). Mule deer are non-migratory species and stay in the same area throughout the year, with some local movement. Therefore, they must have adaptations that allow them to survive temperature extremes from -35⁰C to 35⁰C in the Central Parkland region of Alberta. Mule deer habitat is diverse and extensive because they can be found in mountain-foothill and prairie habitat that is often associated with steep, broken, or rough terrain (Mackie et al. 2003). Mule deer also prefer habitats with adequate cover that provides protection against predators, a visual and auditory buffer against humans, and a buffer against harsh wind and high summer temperatures (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989).

Breeding Time of year: Peak breeding season for mule deer occurs at the end of November, while the breeding season extends from mid-November to mid-December (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989). The average gestation period is 203 days, with variance of up to 30 days. The majority of mule deer fawns in Alberta are born in mid-June (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989). Number of young: The number of young in mule deer increases as does mature. Does between 18 to 24 months have an 80% pregnancy rate, while does older than this have a 90% pregnancy rate (Mackie et al. 2003). Number of clutches or litters: A study of mule deer in Wainwright, Alberta determined the fetal rate of adult does to be 1.8 fawns (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989). In Alberta, mule deer breed only once a year, but does often form matrilineal groups that consist of an adult doe, her yearlings, and her fawn (Lingle 2003).

Life Expectancy Mule deer can live between 10 and 20 years; however, with increased hunting intensity, average age drops dramatically (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989).

Forage Requirements/ Resources Forage requirements for mule deer vary in Alberta based on geographic location and time of year (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989). Important winter forage plants include: snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), silverberry (Eleagnus commutata), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), prickly rose (Rosa acicularis), creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), asters (Aster spp.), and pasture sagewort (Artemisia frigida) (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989). Grasses and forbs become important in the summer, and include: alfalfa (Medicago sativa), winter wheat (Triticum sp.), fall rye (Secale

4 cereal), oats (Avena sativa), and sometimes, garden produce (Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1989).

2. MANAGEMENT ISSUES

2.1 FINANCIAL ISSUES

Structural Damage There is little documented concern for structural damage (buildings or roadways) caused by deer.

Livestock/Crop Loss As suburban and residential developments expand, deer habitat and territory is lost, and thus deer are more likely to find refuge in the yards and gardens of homeowners (DeNicola et al. 2000). Landowners may find the presence of deer to be a nuisance because they cause consistent damage to residential landscapes (Williams et al. 2012).

2.2 EFFECTS ON DOMESTIC ANIMALS Domestic animals, including cattle and horses, can be affected by the presence of white-tailed and mule deer. Deer not only diminish food resources for domestic animals by breaking into feed storage units and foraging on hay bales, feeding on mutual resources also increases the risk of disease transmission between species (Phillips et al. 2012). In fact, shared feed is the most common way Mycobacterium bovis (the causal agent of bovine tuberculosis) is transmitted between deer and cattle (Phillips et al. 2012). Deer also have the potential to transmit Lyme disease to domestic animals through the spread of blacklegged ticks (Grear et al. 2014).

2.3 EFFECTS ON HUMAN HEALTH

Lyme Disease In North America, blacklegged ticks (Ixodes scapularis) are the primary vector of Lyme disease from wild mammals to people. Tick density is a key determinant of the prevalence of disease transmission to humans (Grear et al. 2014). White-tailed deer and deer mice are primary hosts for the blacklegged tick, and it is estimated that over 90% of adult ticks in some areas feed on deer (Stafford 2004). Tick abundance is dependent on the surrounding landscape and how well that landscape supports white-tailed deer populations (Stafford 2004). Therefore, like deer, blacklegged ticks are commonly found in densely wooded areas, and the transitional zones between woodlands and open landscape, known as ecotones. They are less likely, but still present, in manicured lawns or ornamental vegetation, which are characteristic of residential properties (Stafford 2004).

5

Deer-vehicle Collisions In Alberta, 90% of animal-vehicle collisions occur in rural areas (Alberta Transportation 2014). In 2013, 47%of crashes on Alberta’s rural highways involved an animal, and 3% of these resulted in fatality (Government of Alberta 2014). Deer are among the highest reported animals involved in these collisions, and in 2008, deer accounted for 85% of human-wildlife vehicle collisions in Alberta (Carter 2010).

3. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/SOLUTIONS Knowing a species population size is often an overused tool of deer management. It is often more beneficial to know relative abundance and population dynamics of deer, and how these numbers impact deer population health, habitat quality, and deer-human conflicts (Rosenberry et al. 2009).

3.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Habitat Modification Deer are considered selective feeders and, as such, they can cause substantial damage to preferred vegetation, while non-preferred vegetation remains largely untouched. To reduce the amount of damage to vegetation and avoid the use of chemical based repellents, non-preferred vegetation can be planted around the perimeter of properties. However, due to changing population dynamics, and resource availability, no species will be completely free of browsing by deer under all conditions. A listing of plants organized by susceptibility to browsing by deer can be found at the following website: http://chemung.cce.cornell.edu/resources/plants- resistant-to-deer-damage. The original source for the brochure in this website is from: M. J. Fargione, P. S. Curtis, and M. E. Richmond. Wildlife Damage Management Program, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, September 1991.

Dispersion Wild ungulates, likely due to a lack of salt in their diet, are attracted to salt and mineral licks (Urbanek et al. 2012). Therefore, salt blocks can be used to guide the ungulates’ foraging behaviour; by placing the blocks strategically across a property, the amount of time spent browsing crops and tree stands can be reduced, and damage to these areas mitigated.

Non-electric Fencing Fence systems can be used to protect saplings and other vulnerable vegetation from intense browsing or trampling (Urbanek et al. 2012). It is important to keep fences in place until trees are large enough to withstand browsing by ungulates (e.g., 3 to5 cm diameter at breast height – dbh) (Urbanek et al. 2012). Fences work as a method of deer management by excluding deer from specific areas of the landscape, and should be considered if damage occurs to areas of high value, such as tree and landscape nurseries, vineyards, and orchards (Maryland

6

Department of Natural Resources [cited 2015a]). Recommended fence height is 8 ft., and should follow the ground contours to prevent deer from entering underneath (Maryland Department of Natural Resources [cited 2015a]).

Electric Fencing Electric fencing is used to contain livestock and exclude wildlife (Maryland Department of Natural Resources [cited 2015a]). Electric fencing can be used as a permanent exclusion method in agricultural settings, or as a temporary method around gardens or vulnerable landscape features (Maryland Department of Natural Resources [cited 2015]). If deer populations are low and unaggressive, a simple one-wire electric fence can be used; however, if deer populations are high and are highly habituated to people, a more complicated electric fence with multiple wires should be used (Maryland Department of Natural Resources [cited 2015a]).

Repellents (taste-based, odour-based) Repellents can be taste-based or odour-based, and are intended to make certain vegetation communities or areas undesirable (Maryland Department of Natural Resources [cited 2015b]). Taste-based repellents must be applied to every plant in a stand and, unfortunately, deer must consume a portion of the plant before being discouraged from foraging. Some taste-based repellents can be applied to edible plants, but must be washed before human consumption. Odour-based treatments do not require direct application to a plant, and instead exploit a deer's keen sense of smell. Odour-based methods can be quite effective at protecting large areas as staked or hanging pieces of cloth can be distributed over a large area. Odour-based repellents can be made from the following ingredients: soap, rotten eggs, animal parts, commercial chemicals deer find offensive, and real or synthetic urine from a predator (Maryland Department of Natural Resources [cited 2015b]).

Four-post Feeding Stations Four-post feeding stations (Figure 2) were designed by the U.S Department of Agriculture as an experimental approach to topically treat Lyme disease in deer (Stafford 2004). The feeding stations consist of four posts that hold paint rollers laced with the pesticide that the deer will brush up against while feeding (Figure 3). This pesticide causes mortality in all life stages of the tick, with adult ticks being most affected because of their occurrence on large mammalian hosts that use the stations (Grear et al. 2014). Corn is a commonly used attractant, while permethrin- based acaricide is the active pesticide used. Grear et al. (2014) determined that the stations should be restocked weekly or biweekly because the average utilization rate was 7.5 ml of permethrin for every 50 pounds (23 kg) of corn. The stations should be placed at least 100 meters away from any residential dwelling, or areas often frequented by children (Stafford 2004). Factors affecting the success of four-post feeding stations include: landscape characteristics, deer density, density of the stations, and because Lyme disease is part of a complex ecological system, and these feeding stations should be combined with other 7 measures to reduce the incidence of this disease in human and domestic animal populations (Grear et al. 2014). In Canada, ticks historically have not been perceived as a significant public health problem. Therefore, there are no publically acaricides containing permethrin available in Canada at this time (Ogden et al. 2008); however, these products are available in the USA. The use of permethrin will likely only be considered for use if Lyme disease becomes more widespread in Canada and, even then, an extensive review on proper usage techniques of permethrin will need to be conducted to avoid overuse, misuse, and the development of acaricide resistance that has occurred in other parts of the world (Ogden et al. 2008). Therefore, four-poster feeding stations remain an experimental management technique to be employed if Lyme disease becomes more widespread in deer and human populations in Canada.

http://www.shelter-island.org/deerandtick/4poster_image.jpg http://news.uri.edu/releases/html/images/buck_4post0.jpg Figure 2. Four-post feeding station. Figure 3. White-tailed deer using a four-post feeding station.

Dogs

Several jurisdictions use specially trained dogs to “herd” deer out of problem areas prior to fawning season. Very little has been published on the use of dogs in the academic literature, but their use has had mixed success in areas such as Cranbrook, B.C. and Waterton Lakes Provincial Park. The dogs must be present with a handler for their use to be effective.

3.2 LETHAL METHODS Lethal methods should be considered only when all other methods of prevention have been employed. It is important to be licensed and properly instructed in the use of all equipment when using lethal methods.

Shooting Regulations that must be followed regarding firearm usage include: 8

 Section 52(1) of the Wildlife Act: “No person shall discharge a weapon or cause a projectile from a weapon to pass within 200 yards of any occupied building”. This regulation does not include occupants of that land or persons authorized by the landowner.  Having a current Possession and Acquisition License (P.A.L.) and taking the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.

The Alberta Government consider white-tailed deer and mule deer big game wildlife and, therefore, any person wishing to hunt must obtain a Wildlife Identification Number (WIN). The WIN allows a person to apply for draws, purchase wildlife certificates, licences and replacements (ARSLD 2015d). Hunters must also have a Wildlife Certificate and the appropriate hunting licence to hunt big game (ARSLD 2015d). First-time hunters must complete the Alberta Conservation and Hunter education course to purchase a hunting licence (ARSLD 2015d), which can be purchased and completed online. Permission is always required when entering privately- owned land as well as Aboriginal reserves, Métis settlements, and public land under agricultural or gazing lease (ARSLD 2015c). Beaver County is located within the Parkland Wildlife Management Unit (WMU), where the general season for hunting mule and white-tailed deer extends from November 1 to November 30 (ARSLD 2015a). Under the Alberta Wildlife Act (2000) the following actions are prohibited for hunting big game with a gun: (1) ammunition of less than .23 calibre; (2) ammunition that contains non-expanding bullets; (3) an auto-loading firearm that has a capacity of more than five cartridges in the magazine; (4) a shotgun having a gauge of .410 or less; (5) any bait consisting of a food attractant, including a mineral and any representation of a food attractant and; (6) a muzzle-loading firearm of less than .44 calibre. Section 41(1) of the Wildlife Act states: “A person who has killed or is in possession of a game bird or big game animal, other than a mountain lion or bear, shall not (a) abandon any of its flesh that is fit for human consumption, (b) destroy any such flesh, or (c) allow any such flesh to become unfit for human consumption.” This law is in accordance with relevant literature that recommends properly disposing of animal carcasses, and prohibition of lead bullets to avoid lead poisoning in birds of prey and other animals (Kaji et al. 2010). Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a fatal disease in cervids (primarily deer and elk), and is not known to affect humans, although research is on-going. However, hunting can play a key role in the CWD surveillance program, which was introduced in Alberta in 1998, and requires the heads of all deer to be submitted for testing. The following WMUs that require the submittal of all deer heads that are located in Beaver County include: 230 (Wavy WMU), 232 (Hardisty WMU), and 238 (Birch WMU). If a deer is harvested in any of these locations, GPS or land location must be included with each submittal (ARSLD 2015b).

9

4. COSTS

4.1 NON-LETHAL METHODS

Habitat Modification Costs for habitat modification, such as replacing vegetation, are highly variable (depending on type of vegetation, landscape size and available equipment) and therefore not included within this report. In some jurisdictions, trained dogs are also used, but costs are specific to the handler and are not included in this assessment.

Dispersion and Repellents

Disperse deer away from attractants is an effective method to reduce damage to domestic plants and property. Additionally, the application of repellents can also be effective for deterring deer in unwanted areas (Table1).

Table 1. Costs (CAD) of dispersion attractants and repellents for deer management (2015).

Type Item Location Cost (CAD) Attractant Windsor Stock SaltTM Se. Stock (25kg) UFA $13.29 Repellent* Deer Stopper Amazon.com $32.00 Repellent* Plant Pro-Tec Natural Deer and Rabbit Repellent Amazon.com $38.00 (approved for use on edible plants) *Taste-based repellents

Fencing

Fencing is a popular means to exclude deer from unwanted areas, costs vary depending on whether the fencing is electric or not (Table 2).

Table 2. Costs (CAD) of non-electric and electric fencing for deer management (2015).

Fence Type Item Location Cost (CAD) Non-electric Tensile barbed wire (0.4 km) UFA $51.99 Non-electric Treated fence posts (7 ft.) Rimbey Builders $4.49 Electric Galvanized electric fence wire (0.4km) Home Depot $33.00 Electric Treated fence posts (7 ft.) Rimbey Builders $4.49

4.2 LETHAL METHODS

Hunting

Many jurisdictions throughout North America have recreational hunting and targeted hunting for management purposes. Costs vary relative to the quality and type of firearm, but permitting is fairly consistent in Alberta (Table 3). 10

Table 3. Costs (CAD) for lethal management of deer (2015).

Item Location Cost (CAD) Non-restricted Canadian Firearm Safety course Safe Alberta $170.00 Possession and Acquisition License fee RCMP $60.00 Conservation and Hunter Education Training Program Online $70.00 WIN Card Online $8.00 Licence for white-tailed and mule deer Crossroads Esso (Viking) $39.95 Canadian Tire (Camrose)

11

5. KEY PEOPLE/ RESEARCHERS SPECIALIZING IN SPECIES/ MANAGEMENT METHODS  Dr. Margo Pybus, Provincial Wildlife Disease Specialist │Alberta Fish and Wildlife. Office: 780-427-3462, Adjunct Professor Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Email: [email protected]  Dr. Mark Boyce, Professor of Ecology, and Alberta Conservation Association Chair in Fisheries & Wildlife, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton T6G 2E9, Office. 780-492-0081, Cell 780-913-3474, Email: [email protected]

12

6. REFERENCES Alberta Environment and Parks. 2015. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Edmonton (AB): Government of Alberta; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish- wildlife/wild-species/mammals/deer/whitetailed-deer.aspx Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 1989. Management plan for mule deer in Alberta. Edmonton (AB): Fish and Wildlife Division. [accessed 2015 Aug 20]. 141 p. http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/wildlife-management/documents/WildlifeMgmtPlan- MuleDeer-Nov1989.pdf [ARSLD] Alberta Regulations and Special Licence Draws. 2015a. 2015 Hunting Regulations: big game seasons. Edmonton (AB): Alberta Government; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. http://albertaregulations.ca/pdfs/hunting-regs/Big-Game-Seasons.pdf [ARSLD] Alberta Regulations and Special Licence Draws. 2015b. 2015 Hunting Regulations: game management. Edmonton (AB): Alberta Government; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. http://albertaregulations.ca/pdfs/hunting-regs/Game-Management.pdf [ARSLD] Alberta Regulations and Special Licence Draws. 2015c. 2015 Hunting Regulations: general regulations. Edmonton (AB): Alberta Government; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. http://albertaregulations.ca/pdfs/hunting-regs/General-Regulations.pdf [ARSLD] Alberta Regulations and Special Licence Draws. 2015d. 2015 Hunting Regulations: licensing. Edmonton (AB): Alberta Government; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. http://albertaregulations.ca/pdfs/hunting-regs/Licensing.pdf Alberta Transportation. 2014. Information Bulletin: wildlife on Alberta’s roads. Edmonton (AB): Alberta Transportation; [accessed 2015 Aug 26]. https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/3010.htm Mackie RJ, Kie JG, Pac DF, Hamlin KL. 2003. Mule deer: Odocoileus hemionus. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): The John Hopkins University Press. p. 889–905. Miller KV, Muller LI, Demaris S. 2003. White-tailed deer: Odocoileus virginianus. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): The John Hopkins University Press. p. 906–930. Carter A. 2010. Vehicle and wildlife collisions. Hunting for Tomorrow. Cook C, Gray B. 2003. Biology and management of white-tailed deer in Alabama. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources: Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries.

13

DeNicola AJ, VerCauteren KC, Curtis PD, Hygnstrom SE. 2000. Managing white-tailed deer in suburban environments – a technical guide. Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Wildlife Society-Wildlife Damage Management Working Group, and the Northeast Wildlife Damage Research and Outreach Cooperative. Ithaca: (NY). Firearms Act, RSA 1995, c 39. Government of Alberta. 2014. Collision Facts. Edmonton (AB): Government of Alberta; [accessed 2015 Aug 26]. p. 7. http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType47/Production/Glance2013.pdf Grear JS, Koethe R, Hoskins B, Hillger R, Dapsis L, Pongsiri M. 2014. The effectiveness of permethrin-treated deer stations for control of the Lyme disease vector Ixodes scapularis on Cape Cod and the islands: a five-year experiment. Parasites & Vectors. 7: 1–8. Kaji K, Saitoh T, Uno H, Matsuda H, Yamamura K. 2010. Adaptive management of sika deer populations in Hokkaido, Japan: theory and practice. Adaptive Management. 52: 373– 387. Lingle S. 2003. Group composition and cohesion in sympatric white-tailed deer and mule deer. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 81: 1119–1130. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. [cited 2015a]. Middletown (MD): Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Deer management techniques: exclusion methods; [date unknown; accessed 2015 Aug 13]. http://dnr2.maryland.gov/wildlife/Pages/hunt_trap/ddmtexclude.aspx Maryland Department of Natural Resources. [cited 2015b]. Middletown (MD): Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Deer management techniques: repellants; [date unknown; accessed 2015 Aug 13]. http://dnr2.maryland.gov/wildlife/Pages/hunt_trap/ddmtexclude.aspx Phillips GE, Lavelle MJ, Fischer JW, White JJ, Wells SJ, VerCauteren KC. 2012. A novel bipolar electric fence for excluding white-tailed deer from stored livestock feed. Journal of Animal Science. 90 (11): 4090–4097. Ogden NH, Lindsay LR, Morshed M, Sockett PN, Artsob H. 2008. The rising challenge of Lyme borreliosis in Canada. Canada Communicable Disease Report. [accessed 2015 Aug 27]; 34(1). http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/08vol34/dr-rm3401a- eng.php#ref Rosenberry CS, Fleegle JT, Wallingford BD. 2009. Management and biology of white-tailed deer in Pennsylvania 2009-2018. Harrisburg (PA): Pennsylvania Game Commission; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. p. 123.

14

Stafford KC III. 2004. Tick management handbook. New Haven (CT): The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station; [accessed 2015 Aug 27]. Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10. Williams SC, DeNicola AJ, Almendinger T, Moddock J. 2012. Evaluation of organized hunting as a management technique for overabundant white-tailed deer in suburban landscapes. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 37(1): 137–145. Urbanek RE, Nielsen CK, Davenport MA, Woodson BD. 2012. Acceptability and conflict regarding suburban deer management methods. Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal. 17(6): 389–403.

15

Hood 2016

APPENDIX H: SITE PHOTOS AND INSTALLATION COSTS

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 85 Hood 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 86 Hood 2016

Before and After Images of 2014 – 2015 Pond Leveler Install Sites

Before Install: Install 1 (WPT 36) Install Date: June 18, 2014 Install Costs: $883.37 Additional Costs to Date: $697.97

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 87 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 2 (WPT 63) Install Date: June 20, 2014 Install Costs: $1172.49 Additional Costs to Date: $684.06

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 88 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 3 (WPT 67) Install Date: July 15, 2014 Install Costs: $1013.87 Additional Costs to Date: $783.32

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 89 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 4 (WPT 76) Install Date: July 17, 2014 Install Costs: $981.34 Additional Costs to Date: $552.16

After Install: August 24, 2015

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 90 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 5 (WPT 98) Install Date: July 30, 2014 Install Costs: $756.33 Additional Costs to Date: $419.91

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 91 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 6 (WPT 100, Upstream) Install Date: August 27, 2014 Install Costs: $1605.55 Additional Costs to Date: $296.49

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 92 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 7 (WPT 100, Downstream) Install Date: August 27, 2014 Install Costs: $975.48 Additional Costs to Date: $296.49

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 93 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 8 (WPT 101) Install Date: August 20, 2014 Install Costs: $1073.16 Additional Costs to Date: $361.51

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 94 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 9 (WPT 102) Install Date: August 15, 2014 Install Costs: $1077.64 Additional Costs to Date: $300.20

After Install: June 1, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 95 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 10 (WPT 144) Install Date: June 11, 2015 Install Costs: $1196.27 Additional Costs to Date: $172.17

After Install: May 12, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 96 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 11 (WPT 140) Install Date: June 26, 2015 Install Costs: $1024.85 Additional Costs to Date: $305.20

After Install: May 12, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 97 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 12 (WPT 177) Install Date: August 4, 2015 Install Costs: $1059.99 Additional Costs to Date: $143.79

After Install: May 12, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 98 Hood 2016

Before Install: Install 13 (WPT 179) Install Date: August 7, 2015 Install Costs: $986.59 Additional Costs to Date: $193.33

After Install: May 12, 2016

June 2016 Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict 99