1. Beaver Dam Dimensions and Distribution in Northeastern New Mexico Thesis Proposal Presentation Rachel M. Cavin January 30 th, 2015

2. Research Objectives and Research Questions My objectives are to measure the current beaver dam dimensions and distribution in Cimarron Canyon and Coyote Creek State Parks, then to explore how landscape characteristics may influence the differences in beaver dam dimensions and distribution between the two study sites in order to answer the following questions: 1.) What are the dimensions of the beaver dams sampled in my study? How do these dimensions differ between the two study sites? 2.) How are the beaver dams distributed throughout the two study sites? 3.) What are the landscape characteristics of the two study sites, and how might these characteristics influence the dimensions and distribution of the beaver dams between the study sites?

3. Motivation and Significance Beaver dam dimensions are frequently reported in the literature, but seldom with any additional information or analysis aimed at understanding why they are that size (Gurnell 1998). Statistics on beaver dams are limited to means of length or heights, or completely absent in most cases. Most of the research done on beaver dams has shown their geomorphic impacts, rather than how geomorphology impacts them. No research has been done to link beaver dam dimensions with characteristics of the surrounding landscape (Gurnell 1998).

4. Study Sites Coyote Creek and Cimarron Canyon State Parks, New Mexico.

5. Literature Review Beaver populations are significantly lower than they were pre-European contact because of over-trapping (Naiman, Melillo, and Hobbie 1986; Butler 1995; Butler and Malanson 1995; Wilkinson 2003). They have recovered to occupy their former geographic range, just at much lower population densities (Naiman, Melillo, and Hobbie 1986; Butler and Malanson 1995). Beavers are ecosystem engineers and zoogeomorphic agents. They change their surroundings to suit their needs, creating habitat and niches for other species and increasing riparian biodiversity (Butler 1995; Wright, Jones, and Flecker 2002). Most of the previous research focuses on how beavers change landscapes through dam construction, and it is largely written by biologists and ecologists (Gurnell 1998). Aerial photographs and GIS are commonly used to study beaver dams, and have been found to be highly effective and efficient for monitoring beaver on landscapes (Neff 1959; Remillard, Gruendling, and Bogucki 1987; Barnes and Mallik 1997; Snodgrass 1997; Green and Westbrook 2009; Morgan, Gergel, and Coops 2010, Butler 2012).

6. Literature Review Research on the relationships between landscapes and beaver dams emphasizes habitat suitability for dam construction, with some research assessing how landscapes can influence dam duration (Slough and Sadlier 1977; Allen 1983; Howard and Larson 1985; McComb, Sedell, and Buchholz 1990; Barnes and Mallik 1997; Suzuki and McComb 1998). No existing research has studied how landscapes may influence the dimensions or structures of beaver dams (Gurnell 1998). Landscape characteristics that have been shown to be relevant to beaver dam establishment/duration and beaver habitat suitability include nearby vegetation communities, water availability, bank slope, stream gradient, watershed area, stream cross sectional area, stream order, and valley width (Slough and Sadlier 1977; Allen 1983; Howard and Larson 1985; McComb, Sedell, and Buchholz 1990; Nolet, Hoekstra, and Ottenheim 1994; Barnes and Mallik 1997; Suzuki and McComb 1998).

7. Conceptual Research Design

8. Data Acquisition

9. Length Widths (left, center, right) Height GPS coordinates Photographs (for identifying structures) Descriptive information

10. Data Analysis Descriptive Statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test will be used to analyze beaver dam dimension differences between my study sites. The following dimensions will be analyzed: Height of dam Length of dam Width of dam Left Center Right The Mann-Whitney Test was chosen because my data is not normally distributed and I have a sample size >10 for each park.

11. Data Analysis Beaver dams will be mapped in GIS as point data, derived from the GPS points taken in the field. In the attribute table, the dimension measurements and structure classifications of beaver dams will be entered into corresponding fields. Maps will be produced for each park showing the distribution of each dimension as well as the beaver dam structures (gapflow, through flow, over flow, underflow).

12. Data Analysis Landscape Characteristics ArcGIS Surveyed Stream Length Stream Gradient Percent Cover (Forest, Riparian, Vegetation, Developed) Average Valley Width Stream Sinuosity Ratio Upstream Catchment Area Beaver Dam Relative Density River Length between Beaver Dams Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) Flow Statistics The characteristics measured in ArcGIS will be measured both for each entire study area, as well as smaller segments of each study area to maintain within park variability in the landscape. Patterns between beaver dam dimensions and structures, and the landscape characteristics will then be observed both for each entire study site and each study site segment.

13. Anticipated Results An assessment of how beaver dam dimensions differ between my study sites. Maps of each park showing the distribution of different beaver dam dimensions and structures. An understanding of the landscape characteristics which may influence the dimensions, structures, and distributions of beaver dams along river reaches in the western United States.

14. Timeline

15. References Allen, A.W. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: beaver. Western Energy and Land Use Team, Division of Biological Service, Research and Development, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior. Barnes, D.M. and A.U. Mallik. 1997. Habitat factors influencing beaver dam establishment in a northern Ontario watershed. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1371-1377. Butler, D.R. 1995. Zoogeomorphology - Animals as Geomorphic Agents. Cambridge University Press: New York. Butler, D.R. 2012. Characteristics of beaver ponds on deltas in a mountain environment. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 37:876-882. Butler, D.R. and G.P. Malanson. 1995. Sedimentation rates and patterns in beaver ponds in a mountain environment. Geomorphology 71:48-60. Green, K.C. and C.J. Westbrook. 2009. Changes in riparian area structure, channel hydraulics, and sediment yield following loss of beaver dams. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10(1):68-79. Gurnell, A.M. 1998. The hydrogeomorphological effects of beaver dam-building activity. Progress in Physical Geography 22(2):167-189. Howard, R.J. and J.S. Larson. 1985. A stream habitat classification system for beaver. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:19-25. McComb, W.C., J.R. Sedell, and T.D. Buchholz. 1990. Dam-site selection by beavers in an eastern Oregon USA basin. Great Basin Nat. 50:272- 282. Morgan, J.L., S.E. Gergel, and N.C. Coops. 2010. Aerial Photography: a rapidly evolving tool for ecological management. BioScience 60(1):47-59. Naiman, R.J., J.M. Melillo, and J.E. Hobbie. 1986. Ecosystem alteration of boreal forest streams by beaver (Castor canadensis). Ecology 67(5):1254-1269. Neff, D.J. 1959. A seventy-year history of a Colorado beaver colony. Journal of Mammalogy 40(3):381-387. Nolet, B.A., A. Hoekstra, and M.M. Ottenheim. 1994. Selective foraging on woody species by the beaver (Castor fiber) and its impact on a riparian willow forest. Biological Conservation 70(2):117-128. Remillard, M.M., G.K. Gruendling, and D.J. Bogucki. 1987. Disturbance by beaver (Castor canadensis Kuhl) and increased landscape heterogeneity. In: M.G. Turner (ed.), Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY. Snodgrass, J.W. 1997. Temporal and spatial dynamics of beaver-created patches as influenced by management practices in a south-eastern North American landscape. The Journal of Applied Ecology 34(4):1043-1056. Slough, B.G. and R.M.F.S. Sadleir. 1977. A land capability classification system for beaver (Castor canadensis Kuhl). Canadian Journal of Zoology 55:1324-1335. Suzuki, N., and W.C. McComb. 1998. Habitat classification models for beaver (Castor canadensis) in the streams of the central Oregon coast range. Northwest Science 72(2):102-110. Wilkinson, T. 2003. The benefits of beavers. National Parks 77(1-2):30-35. Wright, J.P., C.G. Jones, A.S. Flecker. 2002. An ecosystem engineer, the beaver, increases species richness at the landscape scale. Oecologia 132:96-101.