**Intensively Monitored** **Restoration Project-Bridge Creek**

We propose a pilot restoration project along 4 km of Bridge Creek,
sufficient to cause a population-level impact to the steelhead that
utilize the system. We will monitor the results, treating Bridge Creek
as an intensively monitored watershed/restoration site. This is
consistent with the purposes of IMWs, one of which is to test the
impacts of of restoration projects with the goal of detecting
population-level effects on targeted species (Bilby et al 2004, PNAMP,
2005). Monitoring will be designed to gather responses to the
manipulation as well as covariates unaffected by the manipulation. The
results will be analyzed and used to inform whether the restoration
action was beneficial to the population (the original goal of the
Biological Opinion) while revealing important causal mechanisms.

The Bridge Creek subbasin is a 710 km^2^ watershed draining directly
into the lower John Day River. Bridge Creek and its tributaries are
utilized by a run of Middle Columbia steelhead that are part of the
ecologically distinct Lower John Day population which occupies the
lower, drier Columbia Plateau ecoregion within the John Day subbasin and
are listed under the Endangered Species Act (xxCBMRC 2005, p. 75,
reference spawner surveys). The John Day Subbasin Plan (JDSP) has
designated Bridge Creek as a priority watershed for restoration because,
as with other lower mainstem tributaries, its salmonid production and
abundance potential is high (xxCBMRC 2005, pp. 83, p.249). The Plan JDSP
also identifies habitat quantity, temperature, sediment load, habitat
diversity and flow as limiting factors in Bridge Creek (CBMRC 2005,
p.83xx).

Analysis of the John Day and other subbasins in the interior Columbia
River basin suggest that incision is a widespread phenomenon affecting
as much as half of all the fish bearing streams in a watershed (Beechie
and Pollock, unpublished data). Historical records suggest that Bridge
Creek and nearby watershed incised deeply in the early 1900s, shortly
after Europeans began to settle the area.(Buckley 1992, Peacock 1994)
The mainstem incision depth in Bridge Creek typically ranges from 1-3 m,
sufficient to disconnect the stream from the former floodplain (Figure
1). This has resulted in the lowering of floodplain water tables, the
loss of off-channel habitat and riparian forest and a general
simplification of stream habitat (Figure1, Elmore et al. 1994). Stream
temperatures in the summer frequently exceed 27 ^0^C, and late summer
streamflows are less than 5 cfs (Anna Smith BLM Hydrologist, personal
communication). Not surprisingly, it is on the 303(d) list of
temperature impaired streams (CBMRC, 2005 p. 40). Due to the erosive
nature of some of the geologies and in particular, the large number of
incised, failing stream banks, sediment loads are high in Bridge Creek,
especially during peak flow events. Annual suspended sediment loads may
exceed 19,000 m^3^ (Pollock and Beechie, unpublished data).

The purpose of the project is to engage in watershed restoration at a
scale sufficient to cause a detectable, population-level impact to the
steelhead and that utilize this watershed. This project proposes to take
a process-based approach to restoration of Bridge Creek to cause
aggradation of approximately 4 km of incised mainstem stream bed and
lower tributary reaches. Such aggradation should raise floodplain water
tables and lead to increased summer streamflows, decreased stream
temperatures, a narrower and more sinuous stream channel, and a vastly
expanded riparian forest. Thus we propose to restore one process
(aggradation), which in turn will trigger a series of positive feedback
loops that restore other biological and physical processes that maintain
stream ecosystems. We expect restored reaches will potentially increase
steelhead rearing capacity approximately 30 fold or 13,000 steelhead
parr. Using available parr and smolt survival estimates for the John Day
River, we calculate that the project will result in an additional 79
steelhead adult spawners in Bridge Creek. The existing population is
poorly documented because spawner surveys are infrequent, but based on
the limited, available spawner survey data from ODFW, which is the best
data we have, we estimate that our efforts would roughly double the
current population.

# 

# **Proposed actions**

Presently, aggradation is already occurring behind reaches where the
small, existing beaver population has constructed dams. Some of these
dams have backfilled completely with sediment, allowing for riparian
vegetation such as willows to colonize (Figure 2) and create a stable,
elevated stream bed and floodplain. High sediment loads and rapid
riparian colonization in this system has resulted in a rapid aggradation
process (\<10 yr). This process has locally elevated the stream bed by
as much as 1.5 m in some places, but more typically by less than 0.5 m.
Unfortunately, many of the beaver dams fail before the upstream sediment
wedge and dam can be stabilized by riparian vegetation. Dams appear to
fail primarily because of the lack of large diameter woody vegetation
(e.g. willow and cottonwood stems) to provide sufficient strength to
withstand high flows (Michael Pollock, personal observation).

We propose 3 restoration strategies that mimic (strong) beaver dams to
accelerate aggradation processes, which include: (1) Beaver dam
assisting devices: insertion of vertical posts or poles across the
incised trench to provide key members for beaver to build dams off of
(Figure 3); (2) construction of small diameter log bundles placed
perpendicular to the stream in a series of steps (Figure 4); and
construction of a series of rock steps. Each strategy should result in
elevated water tables sufficient to expand the riparian gallery forests
and thus create a long-term supply of structural material for the
construction and maintenance of more beaver dams. All of these
structures should become "invisible" in a relatively short time period
as aggradation and vegetative colonization occurs. The three strategies
range between the relatively low cost option of enhancing habitat so
that beaver will build stable dams versus the higher cost option of
actually constructing sediment aggrading structures. We have identified
three general areas along the mainstem of Bridge Creek totaling
approximately 4 km in length where criteria is appropriate and the
likelihood of success is high (Figure 5). Criteria selection included
stream gradient, incision depth, floodplain width and presence of
upstream sediment supplies.

[Post-pile fence.]{.underline} This strategy is simple in concept, and
lowest in cost. A series of posts or poles are pounded into the bed
substrate perpendicular to the flow of the stream (Figure 3), preferably
near natural constrictions with low-gradient upstream reaches. These
posts provide key structural support that can then be used by beaver to
build durable dams better able to withstand high flow events until the
area behind the dam can backfill with sediment and be colonized by woody
riparian vegetation. A series of posts lines will be placed in close
proximity to mimic typical frequencies and heights of beaver dams. An
idealized beaver dam sequence might be a primary dam 1-1.5 m high with a
smaller 0.5-1 m dam 20-50 m downstream of the primary dam and 2-3
intermediate-sized (0.5-1 m) dams upstream of the primary dam, and
spaced perhaps 30-100 m apart, depending on stream gradient, creating a
series of connected pools. We will also provide piles of cottonwood and
willow branches for beaver during the dam-building season (summer) to
supplement food and building material. We will work with ODFW to
relocate nuisance beaver (of which there is a steady supply) to our
sites. Such a strategy has been successfully employed elsewhere to trap
sediment in streams (Scheffer 1938, Apple 1983).

[Bundled log steps.]{.underline} This strategy employs bundles of small
diameter (30 cm) poles to create a series of steps sufficient to raise
the stream bed to the desired height, usually 1-2 m (Figure 4), to raise
the nearstream water table close to the level (\< 0.5 m) of the
floodplain. The structure is designed such that it will be covered with
vegetation and sediment, particularly once the area behind it backfills
with sediment. Riparian plantings (willow and cottonwood staking) will
be used to aid in the "visual recovery" of the project. Thus within a
relatively short time frame (\< 10 yrs) the project structure will be
invisible, and in a longitudinal profile of the stream will appear as a
locally steepened section (Figure 4). These structures are designed to
mimic (very strong) beaver dams in terms of size and function. These are
much higher in cost than the post-pile fences, and therefore will be
limited to fewer locations.

[Rock steps.]{.underline} This strategy employees the use of rock to
create a series of steps that will cause aggradation, similar in design
to the bundled log steps (see Figure 4). Basalt rock is a common feature
throughout much of the watershed, so indigenous materials can be used.

**Expected impacts on *O. mykiss.***

We expect the restoration actions implemented will restore floodplain
processes that will result in increased baseflow, lower summer
temperatures, decreased sediment loads and greater habitat complexity
such as more off-channel habitat, more riparian vegetation, and more
frequent and deeper pools. These increases in habitat quality and
quantity should increase the carrying capacity of the system. Greater
habitat complexity also provides refuge from predation, interference
competition, and high velocity current. The expected decrease in
temperature should also reduce predation by warm water species such as
the exotic smallmouth bass found in this system either through thermal
displacement or lowering energetic demand. Decreased temperatures should
also provide a thermal environment closer to the energetic optima of *O.
mykiss*, resulting in an increase in growth rates. In addition,
allocthonous inputs should increase with an increase in floodplain
connectivity and riparian vegetation, boosting primary and secondary
production, and increasing growth rates of fishes. Decreases in
energetic expenditures (e.g. temperature and refuge, increases in
energetic inputs (e.g. production), and decreases in mortality (e.g.
predation) are expected to increase survival and production. Decreased
sedimentation should lead to a decrease in gravel and cobble
embeddeness, providing increases in suitable spawning gravels, and
habitat complexity for periphyton, benthic invertebrates, and parr. Egg
survival is also expected to increase as entombment of eggs by sediments
is decreased.

To evaluate whether fish are responding to changes in habitat as
expected we will monitor several response variables: 1) Spatial
distribution (juvenile steelhead, and other fish species); (2) smolts
per redd or per spawner (steelhead); (3) migratory timing and size
(steelhead parr and smolts); (4) population abundance (steelhead parr,
smolts, and other fish species); (5) parr-to-smolt survival (steelhead
); (6) smolt-to-adult ratio (SAR- steelhead); and (7) recruiting adults
(R/S- steelhead).

The experimental and monitoring program will be designed to address the
hypotheses whether changes in these response variables are a result of
the restoration actions, after accounting for the number of spawners,
natural disturbances, climate indicators, and habitat conditions
not-impacted by the actions (i.e. covariates).

**Experimental Design**

The experimental design attempts to maximize our ability to detect
responses as a function of the restoration action. We plan to do this by
comparing a time series of responses prior to the manipulation to a
series after the manipulation. Intervention Analysis (IA) have been used
for these types of comparisons (Box and Tiao 1975, Steward-Oaten 1986,
Carpenter et al. 1989). A Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) approach is
an IA with non-manipulated sites used as a covariate, thus the
"controls" are used to reduce variation but are not used to measure it
as do true experimental controls (Steward-Oaten and Bence 2001).
Basically, the difference between the manipulated and the control
responses are calculated for every sample event and these are averaged
for the pre- and post-treatment periods, or Ď(PRE) and Ď(POST),
respectively. The test statistic is [׀]{dir="rtl"}Ď(PRE)- Ď(POST)
[׀]{dir="rtl"} and is compared to a theoretical distribution (e.g. BACI;
Steward-Oaten et al. 1986) or a distribution of random permutations of
the observed sequence of treatment and control differences (e.g. a
Randomized Intervention Analysis; Carpenter et al. 1989). The latter of
these is not constrained by the assumptions of parametric statistics
(for a comparison of BACI and RIA see Cloutman and Jackson 2003). By
evaluating the difference in treatment and control, shared
characteristics (e.g. climatic conditions, geology and vegetation types,
and monitoring crews) tend to cancel out. Thus, the benefit of a control
as a covariate, capturing multiple parameters, becomes more apparent. If
treatment and control watersheds differ substantially in a
characteristic as to swamp the effect of the treatment then these can be
used as covariates to aid in partitioning these sources of variability
from the differences caused by the treatment. Techniques are available
to select useful covariates from a list of potential covariates measured
throughout the study period (Milliken and Johnson 2001, Kershner et al.
2004). Further refinement to statistical models can account for temporal
autocorrelations, cyclic effects, and gradient effects (Draper 1984,
Steward-Oaten and Bence 2001).

We describe what we believe is a powerful design to detect the impacts
of these restoration projects on steelhead, *O. mykiss*. Ultimately,
everything describe below would be implemented, however, reality may
prove otherwise. Because of the scale and complexity of the system we
are proposing to study, we view the gathering of pre-treatment data as
attempt to implement this plan fully and as a scoping process necessary
to determine what is and is not feasible. Potential limitations include
denied permission by land owners, the ability to capture enough juvenile
*O. mykiss* to PIT tag, natural disturbances (e.g. flood events or
debris flows), vandalism, and other unforeseen events.

Depending on feasibility, the experimental approach will be implemented
in the Bridge Creek study over multiple scales: the watershed,
subwatershed, and reach scales (Figure 6). At the watershed scale,
Bridge Creek will be compared to nearby Murderer's Creek, where ongoing
monitoring of steelhead populations is already occuring. Within Bridge
Creek, comparisons will be made between Bear Creek, Gable Creek and the
mainstem. Within the mainstem of Bridge Creek comparisons will be made
between control and manipulated reaches, separated by enough distance to
reduce movement between reaches by parr.

Habitat surveys will also be collected in the same areas as the fish
surveys (see below). This information will be used in conjunction with
LiDAR information already collected to describe physically distinct
reaches, as has been done to define sentinel reaches in the South Fork
John Day IMW (Bouwes 2005). This will allow us to better pair control
and treatment reaches for this and further experimental designs. A
minimum of 6 reaches, 3 treated (manipulated) and 3 untreated (control)
reaches, would need to be defined in the mainstem Bridge Creek. More
reaches may be defined to provide more control reaches to bracket
treatment conditions or to conduct other specific research projects
attempting maximize contrast.

Although this hierarchical design may appear redundant, we will attempt
this approach for several reasons. First, by including multiple controls
at different scales, we are protecting against the possibility that
something could go wrong with the one control approach, such as a large
scale disturbance. Second, we are uncertain to the degree restoration
may impact downstream reaches. Although a comparison of multiple reaches
may be more powerful because of higher replicability and the ability to
accurately describe a reach versus a watershed or subwatershed, these
sites may not be independent from each other depending on the degree of
movement by *O. mykiss*, and the degree to which physical impacts from
treated reaches propagate into the next study reach. Third, hierarchical
models such as structural equation modeling, may be able to capture
small scale mechanistic relationships and how larger scale process form
the template for these processes (Shipley 2005). This study will provide
the information to parameterize such models. A better understanding of
the ecological processes that act across scales to ultimately impact
fish populations advances fish management (Fausch et al. 2002). Fourth,
we are also evaluating the degree of variability and statistical power
associated with each scale. This will provide insight into the scale at
which future restoration actions should be monitored. This hierarchical
design will also lend itself to the testing and development of causal
relationships pursued in monitoring and research programs currently
being implemented in the John Day RME pilot program.

**Monitoring Design**

[Steelhead]{.underline} [monitoring.]{.underline} After the experimental
design has been determined, implementation monitoring (monitoring to
ensure the restoration action is still in place) and effectiveness
monitoring programs need to be designed. This will likely include a
combination of fixed and probabilistic randomized sample sites (e.g.
EMAP approach), pre- and post-manipulation in control and treatment
watersheds. Fixed sites will reveal responses more quickly than
randomized sites (Roper et al. 2002), but will likely not detect some
responses such as increases in juvenile distribution. A mechanistic
understanding of how restoration actions influence habitat and fish will
help determine where fixed samples sites will be located. In some
watersheds or reaches, whole census can be conducted negating the need
for a design to select sample sites. Described below is the general
monitoring program we will take to estimate before and after treatment
fish responses in the control and treatment areas across multiple scales
for each response variable. We will monitor several life-stages
throughout the study areas, including parr (age 0 to pre-smolt which
range in age from 1-4 yrs old), smolts, and adults.

This study will take advantage of recent advances in PIT tag technology,
including the use of extended length PIT tag detectors that can be
deployed to obtain nearly complete detection efficiency of tagged fish
that pass through the antennas. The placement of PIT tag detectors
between distinct reaches which include treated and untreated reaches. It
is unclear how many parr can be captured and PIT tagged in the different
areas. Up to 3,000 tagged fish per watershed to provide watershed
specific SAR estimates (I need to do a quick estimate of this xx). PIT
tag antennas will document the amount of independence of reaches on fish
distribution, habitat use, growth, and parr-to-smolt survival. In
addition, the movement information will describe the importance of the
potomandromous (seasonal movement between mainstem and tributaries) life
history strategy as observed in the South Fork of the John Day IMW. This
strategy is thought to occur because of an interaction between
behavioral thermoregulation and density dependent interactions, where a
percentage of the population uses cooler tributaries in the summer,
migrates out in the fall to rear in the warmer mainstem John Day, and
potentially returns to the tributaries as mainstem temperatures become
too warm in the summer (Li et al 2005?? Reference something like their
progress report). The use of tributaries for thermoregulation is a
life-history strategy for steelhead that requires further investigation
(CBMRC 2005, Tim Unterwegner and Jim Ruzycki of ODFW, personal
communication).

Parr abundance and distribution will be estimated through a combination
of snorkeling surveys, snorkel-herding and electro-herding
(electroshocker set to a low setting that is irritating but will not
stun) into bag seines. Snorkel- and electro-herding will be used to
capture fish to PIT tag as well as to calibrate snorkel surveys that are
used by ODFW. These methods have been calibrated in the South Fork John
Day IMW (Bouwes 2005). A census using snorkel/herd-seining surveys may
be conducted over the entire study area. In some areas these surveys
will not be logistically feasible, such as in beaver ponds where
disturbance of sediments will preclude visual estimates, or in shallow
waters that cannot be reasonably observed. In such instances, 3-pass
electroshocking or mark-recapture Peterson abundance estimates will be
conducted for each habitat unit. Surveys will be conducted at the
beginning and the end of the summer field season. Habitat surveys will
be conducted at these sites as well. Changes in fish density will be
used to assess changes in habitat quality, with the assumption that fish
select for higher quality habitat as a means to increase fitness. These
surveys can be used to address reach scale comparisons or rolled up to
assess larger scale comparisons. Further sampling may be done to capture
more fish to increase the sample size of PIT tagged fish.

A redd census and carcass survey will also be conducted in Bridge Creek,
Bear Creek and Gable Creek. As adults begin to return from the first
cohorts of PIT tagged juveniles, carcasses will also be scanned for PIT
tags. In addition, fixed reaches and ten 1 km long reaches selected in a
random probabilistic design will be visited every two weeks throughout
the season to quantify cumulative redd counts at each site, as is done
for the ODFW steelhead surveys.

The number of smolts leaving and adults entering a watershed or
subwatershed will be compared in this experiment as this gets to the
most direct measure of interest, freshwater production or smolts per
spawner. A removable two-way trap will capture outmigrating juveniles
and incoming adults. The trap will be deployed daily to once a week and
checked the next day. PIT tag antennas will be deployed above the traps
to describe trap efficiency. The ratio of tagged to untagged fish may
remain rather constant negating the need to deploy the trap on daily
basis (this is currently being evaluated in the South Fork John Day
IMW). All outmigrating juveniles will be scanned using a hand-held PIT
tag detector or tagged if no tag is detected for further survival
estimates (SARs). These traps will be operated during the migration
seasons when possible. The traps will be used to capture adults
migrating upstream to the spawning grounds. Adults will measured, aged,
sexed and scanned for tags as well during the spawning season. This
information will be used estimate recruits per spawner or overall
life-cycle survival.

Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) models of mark-recaptured PIT tag fish will be
used to estimate seasonal parr survival, parr-to-smolt survival, smolt
reach survival in the mainstem John Day and Columbia River, and
smolt-to-adult survival between reaches, subwatersheds and watersheds.
PIT tag detected at PIT tag antennas in the study watersheds, smolt and
adult traps, and John Day and Bonneville dams on the Columbia River will
be used to make these estimates. Multiple CJS type models can be
compared to evaluate influence other covariates such as; time at
release, size, number of times recaptured, and habitat features on
survival rates (White et al. xx).

The size, timing, and age of out-migration smolts may provide
information about changes to habitat quality. Length and weights of parr
captured for tagging will be measured. Juveniles recaptured at the traps
or in later juvenile surveys will also be measured to describe a change
in biomass or growth. Growth rates will then be compared between
reaches, subwatersheds, and watersheds throughout the study.
Bioenergetics model can be used to further partition these changes in
growth to changes in temperature and prey production. Growth rates and
other information are a more proximate response to habitat quality than
measures of survival allowing for a finer resolution evaluation of the
impacts of these restoration actions on juvenile salmonids. Also,
changes in the amount of time spent rearing in the different study areas
will also provide us a more mechanistic understanding of impacts of
restoration to this population.

[Habitat monitoring]{.underline} --LiDAR and 3-band digital aerial
photography remote sensing has already been conducted for Bridge Creek
and Murderer's Creeks. When analyzed these data will provide baseline
data on stream and riparian habitat conditions within the restored and
control reaches. Using these data, habitat parameters that will be
quantified within the restored and control reaches include: aerial
extent of riparian vegetation, sorted by dominant vegetation type (e.g.
willows, cottonwoods, emergent graminoids), stream geomorphology,
including cross-section geometry, planform sinuousity and longitudinal
gradient profile, and the location and size of beaver dams. Our goal is
to repeat these remote sensing surveys over the study area every 3 yrs
after completion of the project to measure changes in habitat quality
and quantity. Because LiDAR does not easily penetrate water, we will
also measure and monument stream cross-sections at the restored and
control sites so as to provide data on aggradation rates and volumes
behind the structures relative to control sites, as well as providing
detailed information on changes in the channel cross-section geometry.
Additionally, in FY 2006 we (NOAA Fisheries) will be installing water
level monitoring well fields along the proposed restoration and control
sites to measure the anticipated changes in floodplain groundwater
levels upstream and downstream of the aggradational structures,
including "control" locations where beaver dams already exist. Automatic
water level recorders/temperature monitors will be installed in the
wells. In FY 2006 we will also install temperature data loggers within
the restored and control reaches, which will remain in place before,
during and after completion of the restoration project.

**References**

> Apple, L. L. 1983. The use of beavers in riparian/aquatic habitat
> restoration in a cold desert, gully-cut stream system: a case history.
> Annual Proceedings, American Fisheries Society, Colorado Wyoming
> Chapter **18**:29-35.
>
> Bayley, P.B. 2002. A review of studies on responses of salmon and
> trout to habitat change, with potential for application in the Pacific
> Northwest. Report to the Washington Independent Science Panel. 36pp.
> http://www.governor.wa.gov/gsro/science/050802bayley.pdf
>
> Bilby, R.E., W.J. Ehinger, C. Jordan, K. Krueger, M. McHenry, T.
> Quinn, G. Pess, D. Poon, D. Seiler, and G. Volkhardt. 2004. Evaluating
> watershed response to land management and restoration actions:
> intensively monitored watersheds (IMW) progress report. Submitted to
> the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board by the IMW Scientific
> Oversight Committee. 72pp.
> http://www.iac.wa.gov/Documents/SRFB/Monitoring/IMW_progress_rpt.pdf
>
> Buckley, G. L. 1992. Desertification of the Camp Creek drainage in
> central Oregon, 1826-1905. MA. University of Oregon.
>
> Carpenter, S. R. 1990. Large-scale perturbations: opportunities for
> innovation. Ecology. 71(6):2038-2043.
>
> Carpenter, S. R., S. W. Chisholm, C. J. Krebs, D. W. Schindler, and R.
> F. Wright. 1995. Ecosystem experiments. Science. 269:324-327..0
>
> Carpenter, S. R., T. M. Frost, D. Heisey, and T. K. Kratz. 1989.
> Randomized intervention analysis and the interpretation of
> whole-ecosystems. Ecology 70:1142-1152.
>
> Elmore, W., B. Kauffman, M. Vavra, W. A. Laycock, and R. D. Pieper.
> 1994. Riparian and watershed systems: degradation and restoration.
> Ecological implications of herbivory in the west.
>
> Fausch, K. D., C.E. Torgersen, C.V. Baxter, H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes
> to Riverscapes: Bridging the Gap between Research and Conservation of
> Stream Fishes. Bioscience 52(6):483-498.
>
> GAO (General Accounting Office). 2002. Columbia River basin salmon and
> steelhead: Federal agencies' recovery responsibilities, expenditures
> and actions. GAO-02-612. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
> 86pp.
>
> CBMRC (Columbia-Blue Mountain Resource Conservation and Development
> Area). 2005. John Day Subbasin Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power
> and Conservation Council, Portland, Oregon.
>
> Milliken, G.A. and D.E. Johnson. 2001. Analysis of messy data, Volume
> III: Analysis of Co-variance. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida.
>
> Peacock, K. A. 1994. Valley fill and channel incision in Meyer\'s
> Canyon, Northcentral Oregon. M.S. Oregon State.

Scheffer, P. M. 1938. The beaver as an upstream engineer. Soil
Conservation **3**:178-181.

**Figure legends.**

Figure 1. A typical incised reach of Bridge Creek at high flow during
spring runoff. Incision depth in this reach is 1.5-2 m. Note the high
suspended sediment load.

Figure 2. View of an aggraded reach upstream of a 1.5 m high beaver dam
on Bridge Creek, Oregon. The pond has almost completely backfilled with
(approximately 7500 m^3^) of sediment. Willows, cattails and other
riparian vegetation have colonized the new surface. Additionally,
willows have recently replaced sagebrush on the adjacent terrace where
water tables have risen to within 0.5 m of the surface. The dam is just
beyond the patch of open water in the upper left of photograph.

Figure 3. Schematic of a post-pile fence design to facilitate beaver dam
construction-a "soft engineering" approach for causing aggradation of an
incised stream bed.

Figure 4. Schematic of an idealized bundled-log complex dam-a "soft
engineering" approach for causing aggradation of an incised stream bed.

Figure 5. Map of Bridge Creek showing approximate locations of proposed
restoration and control reaches and proposed PIT tag detectors and smolt
traps. Smolt and adult traps will measure watershed and subwatershed
abundances, and PIT tag detectors will be used to describe movement
between reaches and survival information.

Figure 1.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.2444444444444445in" height="3.18125in"}

Figure 2.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="4.302777777777778in" height="3.225in"}

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

![](media/image4.wmf)

Figure 5.

To be completed Monday.

**Notes (to be deleted) xx NHD stream reach code-ask carol**