Prioritization Plan {Work Element B:174 from 9/30/2008, and E:141 from 2011}
The Project Area is extensive (625.9 square kilometers) and streams within the Project Area are severely degraded from conditions that support native salmonids. With the extensive scope of the problem, identifying where on the landscape to concentrate efforts and why represents a major achievement for this Project. The Hangman Fisheries Project (#2001-032-00) was readily able to identify the stream reaches that were important to the remnant redband populations, but how to address the landscape level issues remained unclear until a funding source outside the BPA projects investigated hydrologic processes in the Project Area. On March 15, 2004, the Project Proponents, along with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Environmental Program applied for an EPA grant to identify the major hydrologic process that resulted in soil saturation and wetland development in the Project Area. It was assumed that improving wetland development would also contribute to increased base flows (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007) and thus address low base flows, one of the limiting factors for native redband trout (Hardin-Davis 2005). The final report (Callery 2007) identified downslope as the index that most closely predicted soil saturation and hydric soil locations. This was consistent with our understanding of floodplain storage and hyporheic exchange (Darby and Simons 1999), as well as our understanding of the increased floodplain storage that can result from beaver dam construction (Ruedemann and Schoonmaker 1938, Naiman et al. 1988, Pollock et al. 2003, Rosell et al. 2005, Pollock et al. 2007). The results of the EPA funded study were used to define the Hydrologic Priority Area for the Hangman Wildlife Restoration Project (Figure 1) in the prioritization plan for the Project Area (Prioritization Area Selection within the Hangman Watershed of the Coeur d’Alene Reservation). This Project can now proceed with landscape restoration with some assurance that specific efforts within the Hydrologic Priority Areas across the Project Area will result in increased base flow.
Figure 1. Map of the Project Area with the location of priority stream reaches and priority landforms designated.
Access to Priority Habitats {Work Elements T:92 from 9/30/2007, N:92 from 9/30/2010, and P:92 from 9/30/2011}
Figure 2 illustrates the location of the properties this Project has gained access to through conservation easements, partnership in CCRP and CRP, landowner agreements, and property purchases. Access to priority habitats to initiate restoration has been one of the main objectives of this Project and has been accomplished through a variety of processes. The following is a list of the tools used to gain access to priority habitats. The methods of gaining access are listed beginning with the most preferred to the least preferred:
- Title acquisition. This was used on the hnt’k’wipn Management Area and the Avista Properties.
hnt’k’wipn Management Area – approximately 1,195 acres. This property was purchased with capitol funds from the Bonneville Power Administration to mitigate against the Albeni Falls wildlife HU ledger. The Management Area also encompasses stream reaches that can provide habitats for redband trout and assist in connecting the isolated populations in the Project Area.
Avista Purchases – Three privately owned properties were purchased in FY2011 as part of the license condition for the FERC relicensing of Post Falls Dam. Properties were identified using data and GIS coverages provided by this Project’s Prioritiztion Plan titled Prioritization Area Selection within the Hangman Watershed of the Coeur d’Alene Reservation. These properties serve as mitigation for wetland types lost through operation of the Post Falls Dam. Properties are to be managed to maximize wetland potential. The properties include:
the 24.9 acres Sutherland Trust Property, which is completely within the Hydrologic Priority Area and contains portions of Hangman and Smith Creeks just above their confluence;
the 137 acre McKinnon Property, which includes 72.5 acres of Hydrologic Priority habitat along Hangman Creek adjacent to and downstream of the Sutherland Property; and
the 200 acre Moses Mountain property, which includes 120.0 acres of Hydrologic Priority habitat along Hangman Creek.
- Conservation Easement. Project proponents were unsuccessful in acquiring an easement on high priority habitat owned by a timber company within the Reservation. The parcels included stream reaches that supported native redband populations, but despite initial willingness to entertain the sale of an easement, the timber company ultimately discontinued negotiations and declined to sell a conservation easement. Since that initial attempt, conservation easements have been discussed with a number of landowners but none have expressed a willingness to negotiate a sale. However, there is a new timber company owning the particular stream reaches that were the center of the previous negotiations. Also, landowners within the Project Area are becoming more familiar with the concept of conservation easements. While initial attempts were unsuccessful in obtaining easements, this tool remains a viable option and Project proponents have become familiar with the easement acquisition process.
- Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or Continuous CRP (CCRP) contracts along with an AGREEMENT AND LICENCE TO ENTER signed by the landowner allowing this Project to assist in implementing the Reserve Program restoration measures. Access gained with this arrangement include:
Isom Property on Smith Creek – approximately 17.6 acres along a 500 meter length of Smith Creek, adjacent to and upstream of the Sutterland Trust Property.
Allotment 434 – approximately 19.8 acres along an 825 meter length of Rose Creek, a Hangman Tributary that once supported trout.
Worley Rock Pit – a 150 acre parcel owned by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe near the North Fork of Rock Creek. The property encompasses a substantial wetland/drainage that will be used as an aspen nursery.
- Landowner Agreement, or an AGREEMENT AND LICENCE TO ENTER, allowing specific restoration activities on specific areas of parcels. Agreements are in effect for a minimum of 5 years, with 10 and 15 year duration preferred. Properties accessed with this arrangement include:
Allotment 375 – approximately 30.5 acres within a 100 foot buffer of the original Sheep Creek Channel, which will be perminantly reactivated when the newly constructed channel within the adjacent and upstream hnt’k’wipn Management Area is stabilized with vegetation. The agreement allows the Tribe’s Natural Resource staff to complete adjustments to the channel and plant vegetation along its banks.
Tribal Parcel 1030 – approximately 24.0 acres within a 25 foot buffer of the original Sheep Creek Channel, which will be permanently reactivated when the newly constructed channel within the adjacent and upstream hnt’k’wipn Management Area is stabilized with vegetation. Access was gained through Coeur d’Alene Tribal Resolution 12 (2010), which allows the Natural Resource Staff to plant native vegetation along the banks of the reestablished stream channel.
- Non-Response Letter. A non-response letter is a non-binding understanding established between the landowner of a targeted allotment and the Tribe’s Natural Resources Programs. Allotments are frequently owned by multiple individuals and multiple families, none of which live on or actively manage the allotment. Property management falls to the BIA or to the Tribe’s Natural Resources Programs. In issues that involve major management changes on an allotment consent by all the allotment owners is required. However, to complete management actions that do not result in major changes to allotment management, and that do not reduce the economic value of the allotment, a letter is sent to each of the landowners indicating actions to be taken and, if there are no objections to the actions, the landowners need not respond to the letter. Allotment owners only respond if they have an objection to the management action proposed. Letters have been sent to the owners of A336, A340 and A187 indicating the intent to plant native deciduous vegetation along stream channels and in wetlands. No response from the landowners was received, so it was assumed the allotment owners were not opposed to the restoration activities.
Allotment 336 – approximately 12.4 acres within a 100 foot buffer of Sheep Creek. A336 is adjacent to the hnt’k’wipn Management Area and upstream along Sheep Creek.
Allotment 340 – approximately 27.5 acres within a 100 foot buffer of Sheep Creek. A340 is adjacent to A336 and upstream along Sheep Creek.
Allotment 187 – a 240 acre allotment near Little Hangman that includes drainages that will be used as an aspen nursery.
Figure 2. Properties encompassing habitats that are being restored by Projects #2001-033-00 and #2001-032-00.
hnt’k’wipn Management Plan {D:174 from 9/21/2007}
The hnt’k’wipn Management Plan was written in FY2007 and final approval was granted in May of 2008. The Plan discussed the history and purpose of the purchase of the various parcels that make up the Management area and established a strategy to restore forest habitats, hydrology and agricultural areas of the hnt’k’wipn Management Area. The following discussion is taken directly from the IMPLEMENTATION TIME LINE segment of the Management Plan (page 49) and was intended to set forth a strategy to restore habitats within the hnt’k’wipn Management Area.
The size of the hnt'k'wipn Management Area and the extent of the reduction in native vegetation coverage warrants a step wise implementation of restoration activities. To remove all the agricultural crop production and replace it with native vegetation in a single year would concentrate expenses, cause intense logistical problems, increase the probability of failure and generally increase the difficulty of structuring the landscape to favor a functioning hydrologic system. The Preferred Alternative will be implemented on a stepwise schedule, with the completion of each year’s activities preparing the landscape and logistics for the next year’s work. The following brief overview of project implementation is addressed by calendar year since much of this work must be planned in accordance with the seasons.
Central to ensuring success of establishing native vegetation is the underlying hydrology of the hnt'k'wipn Management Area. The major focus for the first 6 years of management plan implementation will be completing the landscape alterations that will allow reestablishment of hydrologic processes that hold moisture in the soils for longer durations through the growing season. Design of floodplains, wetlands and stream realignments will consume the first year of management plan implementation (2008). Also in 2008, the drain tiles that underlie the agricultural fields on either side of Sheep Creek will be disrupted as this does not require engineering and must be completed prior to wetland establishment and stream re-alignment. Timing of landscape alteration will depend largely on the specifics of the floodplain, and wetland and stream course designs that are developed in 2008. However, implementation will proceed with floodplain wetland enhancements completed before the realignment of Sheep Creek. The creation of wetlands within historic floodplains and using the fill to cover over drainage ditches will be completed in 2009. The realignment of Sheep Creek will occur in 2010 if the flood plain alterations and preparations for the realignment are completed. Completing the floodplain alterations first provides a floodplain hydrology that will support the Sheep Creek realignment.
Planting of native vegetation will proceed once it is established that no further disturbance will occur on a given site. Initially, only small areas will be planted with native vegetation, but as landscape alterations are completed planting efforts will expand. In 2008, the forested segment of the hnt'k'wipn Management Area will be thinned to approximate pine open woodland conditions, burned to minimize fuel loads, release nutrients and clean the forest floor of debris that remains from the thinning project. The forest understory will then be planted with deciduous shrub and trees that are currently lacking under the conifer overstory. Establishing native vegetation on former agricultural lands is difficult in areas such as the hnt'k'wipn Management Area because of the invasiveness of noxious weeds. An established strategy for this region is to first use a broad range herbicide on the target area to eliminate all plant growth, then plant native grasses as a first phase of native vegetation establishment (Idaho/Washington Palouse Prairie SAFE Proposal 2007). Once the native grasses begin to establish, the area is then treated with an herbicide that will destroy the volunteer broadleaf plants. The broad leaf herbicide treatment post grass germination will prevent noxious weeds from establishing and allow grasses to flourish. After the successful establishment of native grasses, planting of native broadleaf and deciduous shrub and tree species will begin. Small segments of former agricultural land that are not going to be disturbed by landscape alterations will be planted with native grasses in 2008. In 2009, once it is verified that the native grasses sown in 2008 have established, planting of native forbs, shrubs and trees will begin on these areas. In succeeding years, new areas will be treated and planted with native grasses once landscape alterations are completed. Generally planting with native forbs, shrubs and trees will follow native grass plantings by a year. The uplands within the hnt'k'wipn Management Area will be the final stage of native vegetation establishment. This first phase of management, which is the establishment of natural hydrological processes and native vegetation patterns is scheduled for completion in 2015, at that point management emphasis will shift to maintaining those amenities within the property boundaries.
Restoration of the hnt’k’wipn Management Area {Work Elements T:53 from 9/22/2006, L:47 from 11/5/2007, C:175 from 9/5/2008, L:47 from 11/1/2008, H:181 from 9/30/2009, G:181 from 9/30/2009, L:40 from 3/31/2010, K:47 from 5/3/2010, I:53 from 9/30/2010, G:181 from 9/30/2010, L:53 from 12/9/2010, N:40 from 6/30/2011, M:47 from 7/29/2011)
Restoration of Pine Open Woodland within the hnt’k’wipn Management Area
Restoration of the hnt’k’wipn Management Area has proceeded according to the processes described in the 2008 hnt’k’wipn Management Plan, with the forested habitats following a different prescription than the agricultural lands. Ladder fuels were to be removed from forested habitats, then the pine overstory thinned to pine open woodland densities, then the deciduous shrubs and trees were to be established under the more open overstory. Within the agricultural lands, landscape alterations were to be completed prior to native grass establishment, and native grass establishment would precede the introduction of the full suite of native vegetation.
When the property was purchased the pine regeneration within the forested portion of the Management area averaged 740 ponderosa pine seedlings and saplings per acre with densities reaching 3,534 per acre in some areas (n=8). Because of the wildfire hazard presented by the dense pine regeneration, saplings were immediately thinned on 56 acres of the forest in FY2006 to minimize the probability that catastrophic wildfire would destroy the entire 74.4 acre stand. The Management Plan called for a reduction in overstory density to 5-20 trees per acre for trees 20 inches in diameter or larger to approximate pine open woodland conditions. The thinning was originally scheduled for FY2008; however, it was postponed due to a drop in the market value of timber until August of 2010. The forest harvest was followed by a controlled burn to reduce the slash left from the harvest, reduce fuel loads and stimulate the undergrowth. The last controlled burn was completed in the fall of 2010 (FY2011).
Hydrologic Restoration within the hnt’k’wipn Management Area
Landscape alterations to improve the floodplain storage began with the decommissioning of drain tile under fields where agricultural production was discontinued. Drain tile was known to exist in three fields within the hnt'k'wipn Management Area at the beginning of FY2008. Discussions with neighboring landowners during FY2008 revealed that tile likely existed under two additional fields. Exploratory trenching revealed that the two additional fields were indeed underlain with tile. The main lines of these tile networks, which totaled 2.95 kilometers, were completely removed. Secondary tile lines, which totaled approximately 37.2 kilometers, were dug up to break the continuity of the tile every 40 meters along their length. In total, drain tile was removed or otherwise disrupted within 279.3 acres of hnt'k'wipn.
Figure 3. Location and orientation of drain tile decommissioned in FY2008.
With the drain tile decommissioned, efforts shifted to decommissioning the deep straight line drainage ditches cut into the Hangman / Sheep Creek floodplain within the hnt'k'wipn Management Area. Ditch F, a small ditch identified in the Inter-Fluve Plan (2008) (Figure 4), was filled and decommissioned in FY2009 according to the designs (Inter-Fluve 2008). Preparations for decommissioning Ditch A (Figure 4), which runs straight north to Hangman Creek from the southeastern corner of the Management Area, were also completed in FY2009 as planned (Inter-Fluve 2008). The earthen stockpile generated through providing an alternate flow route for the water carried by Ditch A, which runs from the southeast corner of the hnt'k'wipn Management Area along the eastern boundary of the Management Area to Hangman Creek, is positioned on the west side of lower reaches of Ditch A. Once vegetation is established along the new drainage route, which delivers the water to Sheep Creek by meandering across the flood plain between the current Ditch A and Sheep Creek, the earthen stock pile will be shoved into the lower reaches of the current Ditch A. It is anticipated that Ditch A will be completely decommissioned in the fall of 2012 (FY2013).
Figure 4. Landscape alterations currently underway within the hnt’k’wipn Management Area.
The majority of the new Sheep Creek Channel design (Inter-Fluve 2008) was constructed in FY2010 (Figure 4). However, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe’s Cultural Resource Program discovered a cultural site in the new alignment preventing its completion in FY2010 (Coeur d’Alene Tribe Cultural Resource Office 2011). Tribal archeologists investigated the site beginning in FY2010, but were unable to complete their investigation until 8/19/2011. In addition to the Cultural Resource delay, the spring and summer of 2011 were unusually wet and it was not until September that equipment could be operated without the risk of becoming mired. The 0.4 miles of the new Sheep Creek Channel is opened and connected to the 2.1 miles relic channel that meanders through the adjacent forest. The old Sheep Creek Channel will be blocked with a water filled bladder during the growing season of 2012 to force water through the new alignment and provide water to plantings along the length of the newly constructed channel. The bladder will be removed after the growing season so the current Sheep Creek Channel will carry the bulk of the high waters during winter and early spring. The earthen stock piles will be shoved into the old Sheep Creek Channel as soon as vegetation is established along the new channel and it is stable enough to permanently carry the waters of Sheep Creek.
Vegetation Restoration within the hnt’k’wipn Management Area
A total of 414.8 acres have been planted with native grass seed (Figure 5). Of those acres planted, 210.6 acres are considered established and ready for the next phase of planting native forbs, shrubs, and trees. Ninety five and two tenths acres are establishing but suffer from an infestation of Ventenata dubia and will need mowing treatments. And the one hundred and nine acres planted in the fall of 2011 evidenced poor grass establishment. This last field will be evaluated in FY2012 to determine the appropriate treatment to encourage native grass establishment within that field (for a discussion of grass establishment determination see the proposal segment on Adaptive Management).
Figure 5. Former agricultural fields planted with native grasses.
This Project is just beginning the establishment of shrubs and trees using fenced exclosures to protect nursery areas that will be used to produce cuttings for future planting stock and cattle panels as protection for small groups of plantings. The first nursery, a triangle measuring 300 yards by 300 yards by 424 yards, was established in the spring of 2011. The size of the exclosure proved difficult to manage so the fenced nursery exclosures established in the fall of 2011 were reduced to 100 yard square structures. The nursery established in the spring was planted with a mix of willows (Salix sp.), cottonwood (Populous trichocarpa), and dogwood (Corus stolonifera). The 100 yard square structures will be planted with a similar mix in the spring of 2012. No data is available at this time on survival of the plantings within the exclosures.
Cattle panels are placed in pairs with the centers pulled apart leaving a football shaped exclosure. Once the plants protected by the panels are established the panels will be moved to protect another group of plantings. Two to four plants are placed in each panel structure. Since May of 2010, four groups of cattle panel structures have been established, totaling 48 structures.
Planting stock of native species purchased from local nurseries has, thus far, evidenced high survival rates, typically between 70% to 100%, within the cattle panel structures. Survival rates for cuttings taken from native shrubs and trees in the area have evidenced much lower survival rates, typically 0% to 18% with one outlier group of dogwood evidencing 70% survival. Since cuttings are far less expensive than container plants, protocols are being established to maximize the rates of survival. Initially cuttings were planted using a dibble (McCreary and Techlin 2000). However, low survival rates caused a change in technique. Cuttings are now planted in the fall after soaking in water for 14 days (Tilley and Hoag 2008). Also, hand augers were purchased to plant the cuttings as deep as possible. Nursery stock will be planted in the spring.
Planting shrubs, trees and forbs will increase as the Project shifts further to vegetation restoration. Survival of planting stock and cuttings will be monitored over time to identify techniques that maximize success.
hnt’k’wipn Management Area Habitat Evaluation Procedure Report {D:87 from 8/19/2011}
Field measurements for the baseline Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) were completed in June of 2005 by the Regional HEP Team (RHT). The baseline HEP credited BPA 317.7 HUs using models for the Albeni Falls Target Species. HEP evaluations are ordinarily completed every 5 years so the Regional HEP Team completed field measurements for the second HEP in July of 2010. Albeni Falls Target Species models were applied during the 2010 evaluation to assess changes in habitats in the intervening years. These models could only be applied to 485.3 acres of the property since agricultural production still occurred on 710.4 acres, or 59.4%, of the property. HU production within the habitats suitable for Albeni Falls model application averaged 0.83 HUs per acre for a total of 400.46 HUs. The increase of 82.76 HUs can almost entirely be attributed to the creation of the 305.8 acre Native Grass cover type. While the Native Grass cover type is low in quality, this was the largest covertype to which the Albeni Falls models could be applied and it produced HUs using both the Canada goose and mallard models. The application of the Albeni Falls white-tailed deer model to the Drainage cover type in 2010 produced an additional 22.13 HUs over the 2005 evaluation. This increase is attributable to the natural development of habitat conditions in the absence of disturbance in the intervening years.
HU losses were attributed to the white-tailed deer HSI within the Conifer Forest Covertype. A fuels reduction effort in the understory of the coniferous forest in August and September of 2006 reduced the ladder fuels within that stand in order to minimize the possibility of a stand replacing fire. Ponderosa pine regeneration and decadent shrub growth were removed on approximately 56 acres through both manual labor and mechanical removal. That fuels reduction effort evidently also reduced forage availability for white-tailed deer. It is expected that efforts to increase stand and understory diversity in the wake of an overstory thinning that was completed in August of 2010 will improve forage availability beyond 2005 levels before the next HEP evaluation. Losses of HUs in other cover type categories were only minor and can be attributed to the range of variation in sampling.
While the overall HU production attributed to Albeni Falls Target Species increased by 82.76 HUs in 2010, the average HU produced per acre of habitat where the models were applied decreased from 1.77 HUs per acre to 0.83 HUs per acre. This can be attributed to the relatively low quality of habitat provided to the Albeni Fall Target Species by the Native Grass cover type. However, these areas will progress to include additional vegetation types in the near future as shrubs, trees and forbs are added once the noxious weed issue is reduced to a suitable level
The value of 2.0 HUs per acre was assigned to that portion of the hnt’k’wipn Management Area remaining in agricultural production. The sum total of HUs for both the acreages evaluated using Albeni Falls Target Species Models and the Agriculture Covertype was 1,821.26 HUs, or 1.53 HUs per acre.
Beyond the hnt’k’wipn Management Area
The hnt’k’wipn Management Area has allowed the Project Proponents to establish a restoration process that can be used across the Project Area to effectively restore Priority Areas as quickly as possible. The techniques are being applied across the Project Area to a variety of properties with native habitats in various states of establishment, from the Isom Property in the southeast corner of the Project Area to the Worley Rockpit Property in the North Fork of Rock Creek on the northern portion of the property (Figure 2). Additional properties will be secured as successes are demonstrated.
Ground Water Monitoring {Work Element J:157 from 9/29/2006)
In 2006, three 40 foot deep wells were established at the confluence of Hangman and Sheep Creek. Wells were established during the initial investigations of the EPA funded hydrology study but have since been used to monitor long term trends in ground water. Surprisingly, the water depth in the wells has not varied more than two feet in a given year. The deep nature of the wells did not seem to capture the variation in shallow ground water between wet winter months and the dry season of August and September. To more closely monitor changes in shallow groundwater and thus floodplain storage patterns, 18 shallow groundwater wells were established within the floodplains of the hnt’k’wipn Management Area. The shallow wells are five feet deep and are made from perforated PVC pipe wrapped with weed block to measure static shallow groundwater depth. The wells were established in sets of three placed in rows perpendicular to adjacent stream channels in order to determine if groundwater elevation increases or decreases as distance to stream increases.
The measurement of shallow groundwater depths through the spring summer and fall clearly demonstrates the rapid decline in water within floodplain soils as the growing season progresses (Figure 6). Groundwater elevations are typically at soil surface elevation throughout the winter and early spring months. Groundwater elevation begins to decline as the spring season progresses and it reaches its lowest level in late August, coincident with stream base flows. The full range of groundwater depletion was not represented as groundwater declined beyond 5 feet, below the depths of the shallow wells. However, the rate of change from saturation to base flow was captured. This information provides a baseline against which future groundwater levels can be compared. The future success of the Project implementation will depend on the degree to which ground water depths can be maintained as the dry season progresses.
Figure 6. Average depth of shallow groundwater by two week period measured within the 18 shallow groundwater wells established within the Hangman and Sheep Creek floodplains.
Baseline Data on the Beaver Dam Size, Distribution and Construction Materials in the Hangman Mainstem of the Project Area.
In August of 2009 a survey of the Hangman Mainstem was completed to map the distribution of beaver dams. The primary purpose of the survey was to verify that beaver are distributed throughout the Mainstem and to provide initial data on the size and building materials of beaver dams. Eighty two dams were recorded, 29 were documented downstream from the Hangman/Sheep Creek confluence to the state line, 41 were on the Hangman Mainstem above Sheep Creek, and six were recorded in each of Indian and Sheep Creek. One dam was an outlier recorded on Tensed Creek after the surveys were completed. Beaver dams were dispersed in identifiable clusters near trees and shrubs. Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) was used in dam construction throughout the area surveyed, and it was the primary material used near the Washington/Idaho state boarder. Dams were small, averaging 4.5 dm tall, with a range of 1dm to 14 dm (SD = 2.4), and 42 dm wide, with a range of widths from 7 dm to 115 dm (SD = 23.3). The largest dam was located in Smith Creek and measured 14 dm tall and 115 dm wide.
The low number of dams, their small size and their clustering in the few areas where trees and shrubs are available along Hangman Creek indicate the population is resource limited. Dams are ineffective at storing water for base flows and their small size on the mainstem may be an indication of their inability to withstand high flows. However, the wide distribution of dams through the Hangman Mainstem indicates that beaver are present and could provide the proven benefits (Ruedemann and Schoonmaker 1938, Naiman et al. 1988, Pollock et al. 2003, Rosell et al. 2005, Pollock et al. 2007) if restoration for Hangman is designed to partner with beaver.
Figure 7. Distribution of beaver dams recorded in the Hangman Mainstem, Sheep Creek and Indian Creek in the late summer and fall of 2009.
Help
Mitigation work
Reporting
Funding
Search
Log in
Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?
