United States Department of Agriculture

Northwest Climate Hub

Forest

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PNW-RP-612

July 

2019 DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for 

Fish and Wildlife Recovery on 

Public and Private Rangelands in 

Eastern Oregon

Rachael Davee, Hannah Gosnell, and Susan Charnley
Authors

Rachael Davee (daveera@oregonstate.edu) is a graduate student; Hannah Gosnell

(gosnellh@geo.oregonstate.edu) is an associate professor, College of Earth, Ocean and 

Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, 104 CEOAS Administration Building, Corvallis, OR 97331; Susan Charnley (scharnley@fs.fed.us) is a research social 

scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main Street, Portland, OR 97205.

Cover: Beaver dam analogues in Bridge Creek, Oregon. Photo by Nick Weber.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and 

employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are 

prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 

gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, 

marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). 

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, 

etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at 

(800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_

filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and 

provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy 

of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to 

USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; 

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Abstract

Davee, Rachael; Gosnell, Hannah; Charnley, Susan. 2019. Using beaver dam 

analogues for fish and wildlife recovery on public and private rangelands in 

eastern Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-612. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 29 p.

This case study was developed as part of a larger, interdisciplinary research project 

to assess the social, hydrological, and ecological effects of beaver-related watershed restoration approaches in rangeland streams of the Western United States. 

It is one of five case studies being undertaken to investigate the social context of 

beaver- (Castor canadensis) related restoration in western rangelands. Research in 

the Bridge Creek watershed of the John Day River basin has found that beaver dam 

analogues (BDAs) improved habitat for fish listed under the Endangered Species 

Act, garnering interest from private landowners and public land managers seeking 

to mitigate anthropogenic habitat loss for sensitive and threatened species such as 

salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.), greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), 

and Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris). Researchers who published the 

studies on BDAs in Bridge Creek are providing technical advice to stakeholders through workshops and guidance documents. Regulating BDAs is a complex 

process because permitting rules are not well defined, and dams carry a stigma 

owing to a long history of water diversion for irrigation and cattle that can impede 

fish passage and alter water delivery. Soil and water conservation districts and 

watershed councils now act as intermediaries to help landowners navigate the BDA 

permitting and installation process. Funding agencies that support restoration work 

are beginning to grant financial support to BDA projects, citing results from the 

ongoing Bridge Creek research. Some ranchers are interested in the ability of BDAs 

to restore incised streams and prolong streamflow, and are starting to use BDAs to 

improve the health of riparian areas. Beaver population recovery may occur following the installation of BDAs on agricultural lands, and the idea of intentionally 

encouraging beavers to return is met with skepticism by some landowners. Understanding and addressing ranchers’ concerns can help pave the way for this tool to be 

more widely implemented in rangeland ecosystems. 

Keywords: Bridge Creek, beaver dam analogue, BDA, ranchers, watershed 

restoration. 
Contents

1 Introduction

3 Methods

4 Bridge Creek Project Background

7 The Legal Landscape: Permitting Beaver Dam Analogues on Public and

 Private Land

8 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

9 The National Environmental Policy Act

10 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers

 and Harbors Act

10 Oregon Department of State Lands Removal-Fill Permits

11 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Beaver Trapping and Fish 

 Passage Laws

12 Funding Sources for Beaver-Related Restoratation on Public and

 Private Lands

13 Bridge Creek Research Facilitating Beaver Dam Analogue Expansion

16 Benefits and Challenges Associated with Beaver-Related Restoration

16 Benefits

17 Challenges

20 Conclusions

20 Future Beaver Dam Analogue Applications

22 U.S. Equivalents

22 Acknowledgments

22 References

28 Appendix

F

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617
1

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

Introduction

Among watershed restoration professionals, Bridge Creek, a tributary to the John 

Day River in central Oregon (see Project Facts), has become synonymous with the 

use of stream restoration techniques that follow the form and functions of dams 

built by beavers (Castor canadensis). These include structures called beaver dam 

analogues (BDAs) (Bouwes et al. 2016a; Pollock et al. 2012, 2014) that use a series 

of channel-spanning, semiporous, wooden post structures woven with vegetation 

to mimic the effects of beaver dams (fig. 1). In 2003, scientists affiliated with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center (NOAA Fisheries) and Oregon State University initiated research on Bridge 

Creek to assess how beaver dams and BDAs restore habitat for the local population 

of threatened salmonids, Columbia River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Pollock et al. 2007, USDC NOAA 2008). Their work was inspired by the long-term 

efforts of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to protect and monitor the 

beaver populations in Bridge Creek (summarized in Demmer and Beschta 2008). 

Additional collaborators from Utah State University and two consulting firms, 

Eco Logical Research, Inc. and South Fork Research, Inc., were soon brought in, 

and a long-term restoration and monitoring project was developed (Pollock 2016). 

Many years later, these researchers, armed with evidence of success derived from 

the long-term monitoring program (Bouwes et al. 2016b, Weber et al. 2017), have 

spearheaded the expansion of this approach to other parts of Oregon and states 

across the West, implementing 24 beaver-related restoration projects as of 2017 (see 

appendix). County- and watershed-level conservation specialists are playing an 

important role in bringing technical expertise about these restoration innovations to 

rural landowners.

Beaver-related watershed restoration is gaining popularity for its potential to 

promote floodplain connectivity and enhance ecological resilience in degraded 

waterways (Pollock et al. 2017). Most beaver-related restoration techniques are 

compatible with multiple-use objectives, making this type of restoration appropriate 

for use on active BLM and U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments and many private 

forests and rangelands. Bridge Creek scientists are placing a high priority on disseminating lessons learned to landowners and conservation professionals through 

training workshops such as those sponsored by Portland State University’s Environmental Professional Program in 2015–2016. Beaver dam analogues, in combination 

with other beaver-related restoration approaches, demonstrate a feasible and costeffective solution to restoration on the scale at which incised streams occur (Pollock 

et al. 2017), but they are not appropriate everywhere. To better estimate landscape 

capacity to support dam-building beavers, researchers developed a model called
2

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

Project Facts

Goals: 

1. Improve stream restoration techniques to increase 

populations of Columbia 

River salmonids 

2. Reduce erosion and raise 

the streambed to increase 

floodplain connectivity and 

off-channel fish habitat

Scope:

• 114 structures on U.S. 

Department of the 

Interior Bureau of Land 

Management land

• 35 km of stream affected by 

restoration

Implementing

Partners

• National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration, Northwest

Fisheries Science Center

• Utah State University

• Eco Logical Research

• Oregon State University

• Bureau of Land Management

Location:

• Bridge Creek watershed, Oregon

Location of the beaver dam analogue project on Bridge Creek, Oregon. 

Upper John Day

Lower John Day River

North Fork John Day

South Fork

John Day

Middle Fork

John Day

Oregon

Bridge Creek 

Watershed

John Day 

Watershed

Rachael Davee
3

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

the Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool that incorporates human land use as a 

parameter (Macfarlane et al. 2015). 

Research at Bridge Creek is well documented from an ecological perspective 

(Bouwes et al. 2016a, Weber et al. 2017). However, there is very little information 

available about the regulatory context for implementing BDAs as a restoration tool 

on public or private lands, how the research at Bridge Creek has affected the broader 

process and impacts of BDA use within the restoration community, or the impacts of 

BDAs on private landowners residing near the research site. Therefore, the purpose of 

this report is to provide insight into the human dimensions of the Bridge Creek story, 

including (1) the diffusion of BDA use from Bridge Creek to other areas; (2) the institutionalization of methods used at Bridge Creek through changes in regulations and 

permitting; and (3) the growing use of BDAs and the ways they are affecting restoration, monitoring, funding, and implementation strategies for landowners interested in 

using this approach to watershed restoration. We also document some of the concerns 

held by researchers, landowners, and conservation professionals about BDAs.

Methods

Methods used in this case study included a document analysis of relevant laws 

and policies on ecological restoration and beaver management as they pertain to 

Figure 1—Bridge Creek is an intensively monitored watershed within the John Day River 

basin in eastern Oregon. 

Rachael Davee
4

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

the work done in the Bridge Creek watershed. We also conducted semistructured 

interviews with Bridge Creek researchers from the BLM, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Eco Logical Research (n = 4) to understand how the permitting and installation process was navigated. In addition, we 

interviewed local landowners (n = 3) to understand their perceptions about beavers 

and BDAs. Additionally, we interviewed staff from soil and water conservation 

districts, NOAA Fisheries, Oregon Department of State Lands, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (n = 15) to better understand the 

legal environment in which these structures are being regulated. Interviews were 

conducted between December 2016 and July 2017. Interview data from a related 

research project on public lands ranching in the Blue Mountains of northeastern 

Oregon are also referenced in this case study, as many of the interviewees from 

that project had experience with beavers and their impacts on their private land and 

grazing allotments (n = 20). We recorded and transcribed the interviews, or in cases 

where recording was not possible, indepth notes were taken during the conversation 

to capture relevant experiences. The interview data were analyzed along with relevant published and gray literature, and documents from state and federal agencies 

involved in the Bridge Creek project. All of the information contained in this report 

comes from interviews unless otherwise referenced.

Bridge Creek Project Background 

The Bridge Creek project is located within the 710-km2 watershed where the creek 

flows through low-gradient (0.5 to 3 percent) meadow systems typical of private 

rangelands but less common on public land. The elevation in the watershed ranges 

from 780 m at the top of the study site to 500 m at the lower end and is dominated 

by sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) and juniper (Juniperus occidentalis Hook.) steppe 

(Demmer and Beschta 2008, Pollock et al. 2012). The riparian areas are dominated 

by willows (Salix spp.), and additional deciduous riparian trees including thinleaf 

alder (Alnus incana (L.) Moench ssp. tenuifolia (Nutt.) Breitung), redosier dogwood 

(Cornus sericea L.), and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) were planted 

as part of the restoration project. 

 The BLM Prineville District acquired land in this part of the watershed 

between 1988 and 1992 by trading properties with a private landowner through the 

Sutton Mountain Land Exchange. This addition expanded the Prineville District’s 

riparian acreage along Bridge Creek from approximately 1 km to more than 45 km. 

In 1989 and 1990, the Prineville BLM district manager wrote letters to the ODFW, 
5

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

the agency responsible for managing beavers, seeking an emergency closure of 

beaver trapping on BLM land in the Bridge Creek watershed, “to begin managing 

beaver as a necessary ingredient in riparian recovery.” A trapping moratorium was 

granted in 1991 and is still in place. Subsequently, the adjacent Ochoco National 

Forest also requested that the ODFW place a moratorium on beaver trapping within 

national forest boundaries, citing low populations of beaver and the ecological 

benefits they provide. The request was granted in 1992, resulting in a ban on beaver 

trapping on all public lands in the watershed. After the BLM closed the area to trapping, Demmer and Beschta (2008) observed an increase in the number of beaver 

dams, suggesting an increase in the beaver population. Counting dams and food 

cache sites serves as a proxy for beaver populations but is an imprecise method. 

Beaver population numbers are not well documented in Oregon because accurate 

estimation techniques have not yet been established (Swafford et al. 2003). 

Bureau of Land Management scientists in the area echoed the belief expressed 

in the letters to the ODFW in the 1990s that reintroducing beavers would support 

watershed restoration efforts. Beavers had been almost entirely eradicated from the 

watershed in the 19th century as trappers entered the territory employed by large 

fur companies such as the Hudson’s Bay Company (Langston and Cronon 2003, 

McKinstry and Anderson 1999, Ogden et al. 1961). Beaver populations continued to 

be suppressed across many agricultural lands in the 20th century owing to conflict 

with landowners related to flooding of roads and fields, blocked irrigation canals, 

and cut trees (Coe et al. 2016, Morzillo and Needham 2015). 

In 1992, the same year that the beaver trapping moratorium on public lands in 

the Bridge Creek watershed took effect, the BLM began restoring the lower Bridge 

Creek watershed to improve riparian and aquatic habitat for a population of Columbia River steelhead listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

(Demmer and Beschta 2008). These efforts included closing the area to beaver 

trapping, riparian tree planting, boulder weir placement, culvert replacement, and 

removing cattle grazing in riparian areas (USDI BLM 1996). Before the BLM 

acquired the land, season-long grazing took place on the property, but after the 

land exchange, shorter grazing seasons were implemented and riparian fences were 

installed to exclude cattle from the creek and improve riparian habitat. Outside of 

the beaver monitoring efforts of Demmer and Beschta (2008), efforts to document 

results of the restoration were sporadic; therefore, the efficacy of these early efforts 

is largely unknown.

As a part of the BLM’s interest in beavers, the agency also undertook a 17-year 

longitudinal study lasting from 1988 to 2004 on beaver populations and ecology 

in Bridge Creek. The findings of this research highlighted the role of beavers in 
6

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

altering geomorphic conditions of the creek in ways that are generally favorable for 

fish habitat (improving riparian vegetation, increasing channel complexity) (Demmer and Beschta 2008). The research also indicated that natural beaver dams in 

the watershed were highly ephemeral. The small-diameter wood that beavers were 

using to construct their dams made them susceptible to failure during high flows, 

which occurred nearly annually in the constrained and incised channels of Bridge 

Creek (Demmer and Beschta 2008). 

In 2006, Bridge Creek was selected to be the site of a long-term research project 

testing the effectiveness of BPA-funded restoration in the Columbia River basin on 

salmonid recovery (USDC NOAA 2008). The BPA sells power generated from four 

dams on the lower Columbia River, four on the lower Snake River, and two on the 

upper Columbia River. Because the dams are a major cause of salmonid population 

decline on the mainstem of the Columbia River, the BPA is required to fund mitigation measures that promote salmonid recovery in tributaries within the Columbia 

Basin (USDC NOAA 2008). Consistent with the court order, the BPA and NOAA 

Fisheries conduct research in the Columbia River basin to inform stream restoration practices that are intended to assist recovery of salmonid populations in lieu of 

Snake River dam removal. In 2007, after several years of studying the Bridge Creek 

beaver (see Pollock et al. 2007), NOAA Fisheries began designing and installing a 

variety of wooden post structures that would become known as BDAs and part of 

the restoration effort (USDC NOAA 2008). The restoration and monitoring work 

in Bridge Creek became part of a network of 16 intensively monitored watersheds 

(IMWs) in the Pacific Northwest (Bouwes et al. 2016b). The purpose of the IMWs is 

to test the effectiveness of specific inland restoration actions on recovering ESAlisted salmonid species. In 2009, 85 BDAs were installed in four treatment reaches 

of lower Bridge Creek (totaling about 3.4 km), all of them on BLM land. Following 

this initial installation, more dams were added for maintenance and improved 

function as lessons were learned, for an eventual total of 114 structures in the four 

reaches as of 2015. 

The data collected during the study led to several publications. Pollock et al. 

(2014) used the Bridge Creek data to develop a general theory as to how beaver 

dams and BDAs could be used to accelerate the restoration of incised streams by 

initiating a series of linked geomorphic, hydrologic, and biological feedback loops 

(fig. 2). Bouwes et al. (2016a) described some of the physical changes in the reaches 

of Bridge Creek that were treated and how this led to measurable increases in the 

population of ESA-listed Columbia River steelhead. Weber et al. (2017) found that 

beaver dams and BDAs buffered summer stream temperature extremes and created 
7

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

temperature refugia important for salmonids, increasing thermally suitable

salmonid stream habitat. Although the focus of the published research is on local 

ecological outcomes, the potential for beaver-related restoration to raise water tables 

and subirrigate pasture in meadows adjacent to streams (Fountain 2014, Millman 

2011, Steubner 1992) has broad implications for thousands of miles of degraded 

riparian and stream habitat located on rangelands across the West. The work in 

Bridge Creek demonstrates the reconnection of a stream channel and floodplain 

across a large spatial extent through the installation of BDAs in four strategic locations. The scientists who developed this technique are now working to export this 

technology to other places and are providing guidance for installations on public 

and private lands. 

The Legal Landscape: Permitting Beaver Dam 

Analogues on Public and Private Land

Navigating the permitting process for beaver-related restoration, including instream 

structures, is complex and varies widely from state to state. It is further complicated by the large number of regulatory agencies that may become involved in the 

approval process, as it often involves considerations of land use, fish and wildlife 

habitat, and water law. Any restoration project usually involves permits from the 

Figure 2—Beaver dam analogues made from wooden posts driven into the stream bed and woven

with vegetation are located at four restoration sites along the mainstem of Bridge Creek, with 20

to 30 structures per site.

Nick Weber, Eco Logical Research
8

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

(USACE), a state fish and wildlife agency, an agency that monitors dredging and 

filling of aquatic habitat (in Oregon, the Department of State Lands, a state water 

quality agency), and, if there is an endangered species in the area, either NOAA 

Fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or both. There may also 

be local county or city permits that need to be obtained. If the project is on federal 

lands, a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis may be required. Further, state and federal agencies may require archaeological analysis, and American 

Indian tribes may require surveys for cultural artifacts. The permits required also 

differ depending on whether the project is on public or private land. This section 

explores some of the federal laws that apply to every state, and then focuses on laws 

specific to Oregon that influence beaver-related restoration. 

At the state level in Oregon, regulations are being developed to streamline 

permitting for instream structures intended to promote ecological function (ODSL 

2017). Oregon’s regulatory approach to using dams for restoration is in the process 

of being amended through a rules advisory committee that was assembled to 

shepherd a rulemaking process for instream structures such as BDAs. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

If an ESA-listed species, or designated critical habitat for a listed species, is present at a proposed restoration site on federal land, or if federal funds are used on a 

restoration project involving an ESA-listed species, then it is necessary to comply 

with the requirements of section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 states that for federal 

projects—including restoration projects—that occur where a listed species or its 

critical habitat exists, the federal agency involved must consult with the USFWS 

(for terrestrial and freshwater species) or the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) (for marine and anadromous species) to determine whether the proposed 

actions will cause jeopardy to the species or adverse modification of its habitat. 

The action agency prepares a biological assessment stating what, if any, effects the 

project will have on the listed species or its habitat. The biological assessment is 

reviewed by USFWS or NMFS, which then issues a biological opinion determining whether jeopardy or adverse modification is likely and how it can be avoided. 

Section 7 compliance can make new approaches to restoration challenging and time 

consuming to permit because, as a BDA proponent from the USFWS pointed out, 

“current environmental law is meant to be protective rather than permissive.” In 

an attempt to streamline compliance with section 7 of the ESA, the USFWS and 

NMFS often develop programmatic biological opinions, which grant permission for 

specific classes of restoration activity that comply with a generalized set of expectations (USDC NOAA 2013). 
9

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

When the restoration technique of using BDAs was first used in Bridge Creek, 

it was new and did not fit within the restoration approaches covered by existing 

biological opinions, so the researchers wrote their own biological opinion (USDC 

NOAA 2008). Now the BDA structures at Bridge Creek fit within the guidelines of 

an aquatic restoration biological opinion, a programmatic biological opinion jointly 

developed by the BLM, Forest Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Another 

programmatic biological opinion called “HIP-III” now provides a fast-track ESA 

consultation process for BPA-funded projects implemented within the Columbia 

River basin (USDI FWS 2013). For example, in 2015, a BDA project undertaken by 

the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs on the Pine Creek Conservation Area, 

also in the John Day basin, used HIP-III to permit the project (Portugal et al. 2015).

Currently, the Natural Resources Conservation Service is developing a programmatic biological opinion with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS that will cover 

future BDA projects and other riparian restoration projects on private land in 

Oregon and Washington funded by farm-bill conservation programs, such as the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program. These programs prioritize water quality and quantity conservation and wildlife habitat enhancement. As this effort demonstrates, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service is beginning to recognize the role that BDAs can 

play in private land restoration, especially in the restoration of mesic habitat for 

greater sage grouse recovery. 

The National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act normally requires an environmental impact 

statement or an environmental assessment (EA) documenting potential effects of 

a project when it is on federal land or uses federal dollars (e.g., BPA mitigation 

funds). Although BDA installation would normally call for an EA, in the case of 

Bridge Creek, a categorical exclusion (allowing federal agencies to exclude certain 

actions from the NEPA requirement to undertake an EA) was granted by the BLM 

because the BDA installation was associated with a research project, and an EA 

was therefore not required (Jordan 2017). Two recent BDA projects on the Malheur 

National Forest in northeastern Oregon did not require site-specific EAs either; 

rather, they were written into the forestwide aquatic restoration environmental 

assessment as an approved aquatic restoration activity to facilitate restoration 

activities for ESA-listed fish and critical habitat recovery across all watersheds 

within the national forest (USDA FS 2012). 
10

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for implementing Section 404

of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United States, which includes any nontidal water body. Section 10 of 

the Rivers and Harbors Act regulates the construction of any obstruction within 

navigable, or historically navigable, waters of the United States. BDAs are considered obstructions requiring fill material within waters of the United States, and thus 

require a USACE 4345 permit when constructed on private land. Beaver-related 

restoration projects on BLM or Forest Service land in Oregon must obtain a USACE 

regional general permit (RGP-04) that covers aquatic habitat restoration on these 

public lands. 

Oregon Department of State Lands Removal-Fill Permits

Oregon’s Removal-Fill Law (ORS 196.795-990) requires projects that will move 

more than 38 m3 of material in a wetland or waterway to obtain a permit from the 

Department of State Lands in addition to the USACE permit. The law applies to 

both private and public lands and was required for the project on Bridge Creek. For 

activities in state-designated essential salmonid habitat, state scenic waterways, 

and compensatory mitigation sites, a permit is required for moving any amount of 

material. These individual permits require a minimum 120 days to process, but may 

take longer if obstacles are identified during the public comment period. Frustration 

with the permitting process for installing artificial beaver dams inspired the creation of a Rules Advisory Committee in 2015 that is charged with developing a new 

administrative rule to streamline the permitting process with general authorization 

for projects moving up to 76 m3 of material. This change is intended to efficiently 

permit the movement of material for instream structures used as a restoration tool 

“for promoting waterway-floodplain connectivity” (ODSL 2017). If approved, the 

rule will create a statewide general permit for BDA projects. The proposed rule 

was developed by a diverse group of stakeholders representing the NOAA Fisheries, ODFW, Oregon Water Resources Department, conservation groups (Oregon 

Natural Desert Association and WaterWatch of Oregon), the Farm Bureau, Oregon 

Cattlemen’s Association, and several other parties interested in or concerned with 

the expanded use of these restoration tools. 

The draft rule also includes the creation of a pilot program in the Malheur Lake, 

Silver Lake, and Silvies River basins of eastern Oregon to install “restoration check 

dams,” which are low-rise, instream dams made from rock and soil, also intended to 
11

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

restore incised streams (see Davee et al. 2017). These check dams are less dynamic 

than wood-post structures (e.g., BDAs), and there is concern among some biologists 

that they do not provide the same geomorphic changes that benefit fish (Salant et 

al. 2012). Throughout the drafting of the rule, a leading concern from conservation 

groups and the Oregon Water Resources Department was that the instream structures will impound water, and that the stored water will be used to benefit livestock 

rather than serving solely ecological objectives. For that reason, the proposed rule 

requires that projects are evaluated by the Oregon Water Resources Department to 

ensure that they will not require additional water rights (ODSL 2017). The Oregon 

Water Resources Department is comfortable with the porosity of most BDAs it has 

evaluated and does not think impounding water will be an issue; however, restoration check dams, which are less porous, would need to be evaluated on a case by 

case basis (McCord 2017). 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Beaver Trapping and 

Fish Passage Laws

In addition to federal and state regulatory frameworks for instream structures, there 

are state regulations for managing beavers, fish species, and fish passage in Oregon, 

all of which are governed by ODFW. Some counties and cities also have requirements related to flood planning, and, depending on the location and funding source, 

consultations regarding cultural resources may be required if ground disturbance 

will occur in order to protect artifacts. These requirements are not addressed here.

Currently in Oregon, beavers are categorized as a furbearer, which allows 

seasonal trapping and hunting with a furtaker’s license. Between 2010 and 2014, 

beaver harvesters in Oregon reported an annual average of 2,746 beavers harvested 

recreationally (Broman 2017). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant 

Health Inspection Service also traps beavers when they are causing damage to 

property. During the same time period, they trapped an average of 506 beavers 

per year (USDA APHIS 2014). On public land in Oregon, beavers can be trapped 

with a furbearer permit in most locations with a few exceptions, most notably the 

entire Ochoco National Forest and the Bridge Creek watershed. Beavers are also 

classified by the Oregon Department of Agriculture as a predatory species and can 

be exterminated on private land without any permits or reporting; therefore, there 

are no data on beavers that may have been exterminated on private land during 

this timeframe. These missing data prevent precise tracking of total annual beaver 

take. ODFW published requirements for trapping and relocating problem beavers 

that allow these activities following the established guidelines (ODFW 2017). The 

survival rate for relocated beavers is less than 50 percent (Petro et al. 2015), but can 
12

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

vary based on conditions at the release location. A statewide beaver working group 

meets annually to discuss ways to improve management and relocation programs. 

In the Oregon Conservation Strategy published by ODFW, beavers are acknowledged for their role in creating stream complexity and off-channel habitat (ODFW 

2016), but they are not included as a species that is in need of conservation in the 

state conservation strategy. 

Regarding fish passage, written approval must be obtained from ODFW for 

any work done in streams where fish are present (ORS 509.580-585). In 2017, the 

department created new forms for writing fish passage plans specifically with 

BDAs, which include post-implementation monitoring requirements twice a year

for three years. 

Funding Sources for Beaver-Related Restoration on 

Public and Private Lands

BDAs can potentially fulfill the restoration objectives of many natural resource 

agencies by taking an ecosystem-based approach to restoration designed to take 

advantage of the interactions of living and nonliving systems, such as altering the 

flow of water through the system and increasing riparian and wetland habitats. 

However, acquiring agency funding for this new restoration tool can be challenging. 

Athough BDAs are lauded for their low implementation cost in comparison to other 

active restoration techniques (Pollock et al. 2017), evidence of their ecological and 

economic outcomes is limited, and there are few models to provide guidance on 

budgeting building material costs, permitting, project engineering, and developing a 

timeline for project execution. Despite these challenges, all BDA projects identified 

through this research (see appendix) were funded through a combination of federal 

and state funds. BPA mitigation funds, and federal dollars generated from energy 

ratepayers and designated for use to restore streams on public and private lands, 

have been the primary sources of funding for the BDAs and associated research 

conducted at Bridge Creek. State funds that support BDA projects in Oregon are 

often administered via Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) grants 

associated with the agency’s open solicitation program. The program provides funding for landowners, agencies, and nonprofit organizations to implement restoration 

projects on lands designed to improve habitat for salmonid species. OWEB is a 

state agency funded by the Oregon Lottery and federal funds, including the Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. OWEB funding is given preferentially to private 

landowners, but can be obtained for projects on public land, especially if it is a joint 

application with a private land owner. 
13

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

The Natural Resources Conservation Service, recognizing that outcomes 

associated with BDAs align with the agency’s priority to restore function to ecosystems on working lands where they overlap with greater sage grouse habitat, is 

amending practice code 643 to include “scenario 40,” which provides funding that 

can cover the costs of building a post line-wicker weave or a BDA structure. When 

this change is finalized, the structures can be funded on private land through EQIP 

(Meastas 2017). Funding for EQIP projects on private land typically requires an 

in-kind match, e.g. a landowner’s contribution of materials or labor, which serves 

as a cost share. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has been working on 

standardizing the costs of BDA installations and providing a design template that 

can be applied in a wide variety of circumstances, and this is leading to expanded 

use of BDAs by OWEB and EQIP grantees. For example, OWEB recently funded 

the Wheeler County Soil and Water Conservation District and NOAA to collaborate 

on a multiday workshop to train landowners, conservation staff from agencies and 

watershed councils, and local contractors to install the structures on an unrestored 

tributary to Bridge Creek, thereby increasing the number of people trained to use 

this tool (OWEB project #217-6044). OWEB staff interviewed indicated that funding is granted preferentially to projects that target contiguous land ownerships, and 

projects with a recovery trajectory that does not require long-term maintenance.1

The rationale for funding self-sustaining projects is that once a recovery trajectory 

is set, continued investment of restoration dollars will not be required owing to the 

positive feedback loops that are set in motion. 

The Malheur National Forest is part of a congressionally established ecosystem 

restoration initiative called the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 

(https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/malheur/workingtogether/partnerships/?cid=

STELPRDB5244635&width=full). Funds from that program were used to install 

BDAs in the John Day watershed portion of the national forest because of the presence of ESA-listed Columbia River steelhead, and in the Malheur River watershed 

because of the presence of an ESA-listed bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). 

Bridge Creek Research Facilitating Beaver Dam 

Analogue Expansion 

Information about BDAs to help people understand how to get started on their own 

projects is spreading through classes and workshops taught by scientists, professionals, and practitioners from NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, Forest Service, Portland State 

University, and Utah State University; private consultants, such as Eco Logical 

1

 OWEB staff, interviewed March 2017.
14

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

Research and Fiori GeoSciences; and nongovernmental organizations, such as the 

Scott River Watershed Council in California, the Oregon Natural Desert Association, 

and the Nature Conservancy. In June 2017, researchers published the second version 

of the Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Pollock et al. 2017) to provide an accessible 

manual for people interested in beaver-related watershed restoration. According to 

Nick Weber, of Eco Logical Research, these structures are a way to extend the spatial 

extent of restoration for the same amount of money as traditional restoration because, 

“you cut out the middle man because you don’t need engineer’s design specs” (Weber 

2016). This low-cost and low-tech approach is attracting a lot of interest, but it is 

important to the researchers that the tool is not seen as low risk. Lessons about BDA 

design and placement were learned over a decade, and adaptive management techniques were incorporated to achieve targeted restoration goals. With that in mind, the 

researchers are sharing their technical expertise in order to prevent haphazard use of 

the tool, which could undermine the benefits of targeted use. 

Each structure that you build needs to have a purpose and have assigned its 

purpose before you start... You [can’t] just walk along the stream and say 

let’s put one here and here and here. You think about what you want for that 

whole [system].

—Chris Jordan, NOAA Fisheries, Bridge Creek researcher

Researchers lead workshops that often entail multiday gatherings combining 

field trips and classroom training to allow people to see a project site and learn 

about the way beavers and beaver dams function in a healthy ecosystem (fig. 3). 

Workshops have been attended by conservation workers affiliated with state and 

federal agencies, American Indian tribes, soil and water conservation districts, 

watershed councils, nongovernmental organizations, conservation groups such as 

Ducks Unlimited, OWEB, and interested landowners who have heard about the 

benefits beavers may bring to their operations. For example, workshops conducted 

by the Oregon Natural Desert Association, a nonprofit environmental group, take 

groups to restoration sites where they volunteer, making these projects even more 

cost-effective for landowners. Such workshops are effective because participants 

get to see the benefits of BDAs firsthand, they learn the complexities of permitting 

BDA projects, and they exchange tips on what needs to be done to meet state and 

federal regulatory requirements. Hearing about the change in watershed conditions 

that the restoration can achieve from experienced practitioners can be helpful for 

guiding expectations for timelines and outcomes. Herb Winters, a soil and water 

conservation district employee, reflected on the importance of landowners seeing 

the BDAs in action in order to understand what a difference the structures and 
15

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

beavers can make in a short time: “When [people] drive down the road and see the 

transformation that [has] occurred in [a] brief time, it makes others curious to try.”

In Wheeler County (where Bridge Creek is located), the local soil and water 

conservation district expanded this type of peer-to-peer learning through an OWEB 

funded workshop to train interested implementers on the resources required to 

install a BDA project. The workshop covered an introduction to beaver-related 

watershed restoration and familiarized participants with technical tools like the 

Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool for assessing a site’s capacity for beaver habitat, and a monitoring and design iPhone2

 application. Workshop participants went 

out to the field and helped install BDAs and tested the application. An August 2017 

workshop in Condon, Oregon, also provided an opportunity for local implementers and state regulators from the Oregon Department of State Lands, ODFW and 

OWEB to discuss coordinating monitoring requirements across agencies to keep 

projects affordable for private landowners. 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service is also consulting with beaver 

restoration experts at Utah State University involved in the Bridge Creek research, 

2

 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service. 

Figure 3—Groups learn about installing beaver dam analogues on workshops and field trips, 

such as this one on Bridge Creek in Oregon.

Eco Logical Research, Inc.
16

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

sending 30 staff there to learn about how BDAs can be used to improve greater 

sage grouse habitat on private land. A Natural Resources Conservation Service 

staff biologist suggested that incorporating guidelines for BDAs into language and 

documents that staff are accustomed to seeing would make them more likely to 

utilize the tool in their rangeland restoration projects (Santana 2017). The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service is also using its Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program to collaborate with Trout Unlimited to use BDAs as a strategy for improving habitat where greater sage grouse, red band trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnerii), and Columbia spotted frog populations overlap, in hopes of creating drought 

resiliency on ranches (USDA NRCS 2016a). This type of program creates opportunities for producers to engage in restoration that will benefit both livestock and 

threatened species while keeping water in streams longer. The Natural Resources 

Conservation Service and soil and water conservation districts provide tools and 

options for altering grazing management in ways that will aid in the recovery 

of woody riparian vegetation and help cattle ranchers use BDAs to contribute to 

agency conservation objectives. 

Benefits and Challenges Associated With BeaverRelated Restoration

Benefits

Beaver dam analogues are not just being used as a tool for restoring fish habitat; 

agencies are also hoping they will be useful in restoring riparian and mesic habitat 

that is important for other species of concern, such as the Columbia spotted frog 

(Munger and Lingo 2003) and greater sage grouse (USDA NRCS 2016b). In Bridge 

Creek, the placement of structures was designed to encourage beavers to return to 

the area and continue the work that the restoration project started by maintaining the 

installed dams as stable platforms and encouraging persistent colonization (Pollock 

et al. 2012, USDC 2008). The transition from degraded riparian pastures to thriving 

riparian communities at the Bridge Creek site is proving to be of interest to landowners and managers dealing with degraded rangelands that are being used for cattle 

production. Because the BLM does not permit grazing along Bridge Creek where the 

research took place, we do not know how the presence of cattle would have changed 

the recovery trajectory in that area. However, on an adjacent private ranch, ranch 

managers perceived the elevated water table on Bridge Creek as a benefit of BDAs, 

and installed them on their ranch in 2016 with funds from OWEB.
17

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

It’s been proven that if you can get your water table up, it spreads that 

water out, so you will have more wet spots show up and more green grass... 

everything benefits.

—Private ranch manager, Bridge Creek 

Post-style restoration structures have been in use on rangelands for close to a 

century to control erosional processes and prevent stream incision (Kraebel and 

Pillsbury 1934), but researchers at Bridge Creek are the first to link the design and 

function of these structures to beaver dams. The design of the BDA project by the 

NOAA Fisheries team is beneficial because it is accessible to others in the restoration community with smaller budgets. Restoration costs using traditional methods 

and heavy equipment can exceed $1 million per mile, while BDAs are being 

installed for about $1,000 to $5,000 per structure, including the cost of design and 

permitting (Winters 2017). 

Before the Bear Creek project, I never had to do the permitting and I was 

dreading it. I thought it was going to be a daunting process, but it turned 

out to be pretty painless. 

—Herb Winters, Wheeler County Soil and Water Conservation

District specialist

Challenges

Not all ranchers are as tolerant of beavers as those carrying out beaver-related restoration projects on their property. In interviews with 20 grazing permittees on the 

nearby Umatilla National Forest conducted in 2016, several concerns were voiced: 

three permittees stated that beavers cause problems when they build dams in irrigation systems; four said they disliked the fact that beavers cut down large trees; and 

two reported that beavers create unwanted flooding in pastures. These drawbacks 

challenge efforts to promote beaver-related restoration on rangelands shared by 

ranchers (who typically grow hay). Project implementers caution that BDAs alone 

are not as effective as having beavers present to use them (Weber 2016), and BDA 

projects are often designed with the hope that beavers will move in and take over 

maintenance of the structures. Thus, it is important to communicate the need for 

beaver tolerance where people are interested in BDAs, and to seek ways of mitigating unwanted beaver behavior.

Several ranchers we interviewed at the Umatilla National Forest and Bridge 

Creek emphasized the importance of being able to control beavers when they are in 

the stream system in order to protect their property from flooding or losing large 
18

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

trees (fig. 4). Control often takes the form of lethal measures to reduce populations 

and remove beavers from areas where they are not wanted. A rancher interviewed 

in the Bridge Creek area for this case study said he worries about losing the ability 

to work in his flooded fields if they are declared wetlands because of the beaverdams; he therefore uses heavy equipment to pull dams out of the creek. Even with 

this work to deter beavers, he can point out areas on his property that are being 

converted from grass pasture to willows. 

In 2016, the Malheur National Forest fisheries and watershed program and the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program provided match funding for the 

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs to do restoration on the Malheur National Forest that included 70 BDA structures on Camp Creek (USDA FS 2016). The area has 

multiple grazing permittees, and over the next several years, this project will provide 

valuable insight regarding the ways in which the installations affect grazing. 

A survey of 1,512 private landowners from all regions of Oregon, including 

432 from eastern Oregon, indicated that the public is interested in coexisting with 

beavers and that incentive programs that supply materials to reduce beaver damage 

would likely increase tolerance of beavers even when beavers have caused damage 

(Morzillo and Needham 2015). No such incentive programs have been implemented 

to date. 

Figure 4— Beavers cut down large trees that provide shade, which can lower ranchers’ tolerance 

for beavers.

Rachael Davee
19

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

Other concerns with BDAs surfaced during the Oregon Department of State 

Lands’ rulemaking process to create a general permit for BDAs between 2015 and 

2017. The creation of a general permit is intended to benefit small groups like soil 

and water conservation districts and landowners by expediting the permitting for 

restoration projects. During the public comment period, numerous letters were 

submitted to the Oregon Department of State Lands expressing a range of concerns 

from excessive permissiveness to excessive regulatory burdens (ODSL 2017). 

Gilliam County Soil and Water Conservation District expressed concerns that the 

Oregon Department of State Lands’ proposed requirement to develop a grazing plan 

in order to receive approval for installing BDAs on private land is an overreach of 

the department’s authority. Concerns about the potential for increased stream temperatures with these projects were also expressed; like natural beaver dams, they 

create ponded water with more surface area that may result in stream-temperature 

increases (Majerova et al. 2015). Elevated temperatures are an issue in already 

impaired streams and require more research; however, research from Bridge Creek 

indicates that beaver ponds lower temperatures, presumably by increasing rates of 

exchange or mixing between shallow groundwater and surface water (Weber et al. 

2017). Others writing letters opined that even if elevated temperatures result from 

beaver dams, this elevation may be preferable to the stream going dry seasonally in 

the absence of BDAs or natural beaver dams. Water rights were also on the list of 

concerns from water managers and conservation groups in the public comments. 

According to Oregon Water Resources Department staff involved in drafting the 

Department of State Lands permit, however, there have been no complaints by 

individuals about BDAs affecting their water rights. 

The rapid expansion of BDAs is premised largely on data from the Bridge 

Creek project, a single research site that has been in existence for less than 10 

years. The same technique is now being applied in different landscapes in hopes of 

producing comparable results. This rapid scaling up in the use of BDAs suggests a 

potential risk of misuse owing to their simple design and low implementation cost. 

It is a challenge to regulate them sufficiently to ensure high-quality installations 

while not creating onerous regulations that deter landowners. 

Though the results of the Bridge Creek study demonstrated that both juvenile 

and adult salmonids could pass multiple BDA structures, some fisheries biologists 

still express concerns about the ability of fish to safely pass BDAs. One biologist 

referred to the post structures as “glorified wood check dams” because he believes 

that real beaver dams have a more ephemeral quality than the BDAs and are thus 

more fish friendly. In Oregon, ODFW reviews all BDA installations and must grant 

approval before a structure may be installed. In one case, the design of a BDA 
20

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

project was amended to address the ODFW concern that willow branches woven 

too tightly would create a barrier to fish (Porter 2017). Cumulatively, these concerns 

clarify the need to learn more about the effects of BDAs at sites beyond Bridge 

Creek. Data gathered through monitoring would be beneficial for understanding 

how the structures respond in alternative environments.

Conclusions

Research findings from the BDA experiment at Bridge Creek are being used to 

design beaver-related restoration projects on public and private rangelands in 

eastern Oregon and elsewhere in the Western United States. Researchers from the 

Bridge Creek project are involved in expanding the use of BDAs to ensure that the 

functional integrity of this tool is not diminished through inappropriate applications. Ranchers and other land managers in eastern Oregon report a mix of benefits 

and challenges associated with BDAs and beaver-related restoration more broadly.

Oregon Department of State Lands is developing a statewide general authorization permit for instream structures that promote floodplain connectivity that will 

fast track future applications for BDA permits. Beaver population recovery is an 

important component in achieving restoration on streams where BDAs are used, 

which means understanding and addressing ranchers’ concerns about beavers will 

be necessary for the tool to be widely implemented. Soil and water conservation 

districts and watershed councils are important partners in securing funding as well 

as providing technical expertise to landowners for permitting and installing BDAs.

The research on Bridge Creek is informing the development of programmatic 

biological opinions that allow BDAs to be used in accordance with the ESA, and 

federal agencies have or are in the process of developing similar enabling programmatic direction. 

Future Beaver Dam Analogue Applications

Recognizing the scale at which beavers historically engineered the landscape is the 

basis for the argument to mimic their impacts by using BDAs as a model for future 

restoration projects on private and public land (Naiman et al. 1988, Pollock et al. 

2014). In Oregon, many BDA restoration projects on rangelands involve soil and 

water conservation districts and watershed councils, both of which have institutional knowledge about permitting requirements and funding opportunities. These 

intermediary groups could facilitate the adoption of more BDA projects among 

private landowners by helping expedite the permitting process, and by helping 

landowners increase the size of a project by acquiring matching funds through 

federal and state grantors. To scale up this technology, it may be necessary to 
21

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

secure additional funds for BDA monitoring because OWEB large grants currently 

limit monitoring to $2,500 per project. Securing funds through technical assistance 

grants or effectiveness monitoring grants would ensure projects are able to comply with monitoring requirements and contribute to understanding the effects of 

BDAs in different environments. With additional funding, grant writers could also 

consider expanding the scope of a project’s monitoring plan to include economic 

metrics in order to engage more landowners in restoration projects. BDA installations on public lands will likely become more common as federal agencies continue 

developing more programmatic biological opinions to streamline the paperwork and 

create precedent about this nascent restoration technique. 

We’re going to ramp up and do whole stream systems with hundreds of 

these BDAs. At $1,000 each, you can’t beat it. 

—Herb Winters, Wheeler County Soil and Water Conservation

District specialist

If Oregon’s administrative rule to create a general authorization covering BDA 

installations statewide is approved as drafted, it will require each project to be 

reported to OWEB upon completion, and OWEB will maintain a database of all 

projects implemented under the rule. This inventory will be important because, 

currently, monitoring of OWEB-funded projects is often limited to photo points and 

a written description of observed responses to the installation, but the records are not 

compiled into a database cataloging all BDAs. The Bridge Creek project demonstrates 

the value of collecting rigorous data on BDA implementation, including long-term 

changes such as vegetation cover and type, water holding capacity of the soil, total 

area of riparian habitat, and fish impacts so that future expansion of this restoration 

tool can occur with confidence that it is promoting environmental benefits. Integrating a socioeconomic monitoring component into BDA projects to examine their 

impacts on landowners, grazing permittees on federal lands, and their agricultural 

operations would provide valuable information to ensure that BDAs are implemented 

in a manner that also provides social benefits, and mitigates their costs.

The use of BDAs is increasing across the West and the effects these projects 

will have on grazing lands and the ranchers who use them will be more apparent 

after the structures have been in place for several years. Ideally, if beavers take over 

BDA maintenance, the cost-benefit ratio will improve by maintaining a recovery 

trajectory after the financial investment ceases. For the BDAs to achieve desirable 

long-term ecosystem objectives, explicitly incorporating the role of beavers into 

restoration planning may help increase success. 
22

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

U.S. Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Meters 1.094 Yards

Kilometers (km) .621 Miles

Square kilometers (km2) .386 Square miles

Cubic meters (m3) 35.3 Cubic feet

Acknowledgments

We thank the Bridge Creek project stakeholders for their time and insights. This 

research was funded by the USDA Northwest Climate Hub and supported by the 

USDI Northwest Climate Science Center. We thank Chris Jordan, Michael Pollock, 

Nick Weber, Michael Campana, Holly Prendeville, Gabrielle Roesch McNally, and 

Bea Van Horne for reviewing this document, which helped improve it.

References

Bouwes, N.; Bennett, S.; Wheaton, J. 2016b. Adapting adaptive management 

for testing the effectiveness of stream restoration: an intensively monitored 

watershed example. Fisheries. 41(2): 84–91.

Bouwes, N.; Weber, N.; Jordan, C.E.; Saunders, W.C.; Tattam, I.A.; Volk, C.; 

Pollock, M.M. 2016a. Ecosystem experiment reveals benefits of natural and 

simulated beaver dams to a threatened population of steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss). Scientific Reports. 6:art 28581. 

Broman, D. 2017. Personal communication. Furbearer coordinator, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE,

Salem, OR 97302.

Coe, F.; Petro, V.; Taylor, J. 2016. Wildlife in managed forests: the American 

beaver. Portland, OR: Oregon Forest Resources Institute. 24 p. 

Davee, R.; Charnley, S.; Gosnell, H. 2017. Silvies Valley Ranch, Oregon: using 

artificial beaver dams to restore incised streams. Res. Note. PNW-RN-577. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 11 p.

Demmer, R.; Beschta, R.L. 2008. Recent history (1988–2004) of beaver dams 

along Bridge Creek in central Oregon. Northwest Science. 82(4): 309–318. doi: 

10.3955/0029-344x-82.4.309.
23

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

Fountain, S. 2014. Ranchers’ friend and farmers’ foe: reshaping nature with beaver 

reintroduction in California. Environmental History. 19(2): 239–269.

Jordan, C. 2016. Personal communication. Program manager, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 200 SW 35th

Street, Corvallis, OR 97333.

Kraebel, C.J.; Pillsbury, A.F. 1934. Handbook of erosion control in mountain 

meadows. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 77 p. https://www.nrcs.usda.

gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_053967.pdf.

Langston, N.; Cronon, W. 2003. Where land & water meet: a western landscape 

transformed. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 230 p.

Macfarlane, W.W.; Wheaton, J.M.; Bouwes, N.; Jensen, M.; Gilbert, J.T.; 

Hough-Snee, N.; Shivick, J. 2015. Modeling the capacity of riverscapes to 

support beaver dams. Geomorphology. 277: 72–99. doi: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.1.

Majerova, M.; Neilson, B.; Schmadel, N.M.; Wheaton, J.; Snow, C. 2015.

Impacts of beaver dams on hydrologic and temperature regimes in a mountain 

stream. Hydrology and Earth Systems Science. 19(8): 3541–3556. 

McCord, M. 2017. Personal communication. Northwest region manager, Oregon 

Department of Water Resources, 725 Summer Street NE, Suite A, Salem, OR 

97301. 

McKinstry, M.; Anderson, S. 1999. Attitudes of private- and public-land 

managers in Wyoming, USA, toward beaver. Environmental Management.

23(1): 95–101.

Meastas, J. 2017. Personal communication. Ecologist, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, OR 97232.

Millman, J. 2011. With trouble on the range, ranchers wish they could leave it to 

beavers: critters, once reviled, gain popularity with ‘believers’; a good rodent is 

hard to find. Wall Street Journal. August 30. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100

01424053111904253204576512391087253596. (10 January 2018).

Morzillo, A.; Needham, M. 2015. Landowner incentives and normative tolerances 

for managing beaver impacts. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 20(6): 514–530.

Munger, J.C.; Lingo, H.A. 2003. Reintroduction of beaver to aid restoration 

of the spotted frog population at Stoneman Creek. 785 Tech. Report. S 3948 

Development Avenue, Submitted to: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Boise, ID 83709.
24

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

Naiman R.J.; Johnston, C.A.; Kelly, J.C. 1988. Alteration of North American 

streams by beaver. BioScience. 38: 753–762. 

Ogden, P.; Davies, K.G.; Johansen, D.; Hudson’s Bay Record Society. 1961. Peter 

Skene Ogden’s Snake Country journal, 1826–27 (Publications of the Hudson’s Bay 

Record Society; v. 23). London, United Kingdom: Hudson’s Bay Record Society.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW]. 2017. Requirements for 

relocation of beaver in Oregon. https://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/living_with/

docs/Oregon_Beaver_Relocation_Requirements_Forms.pdf. (21 December 2017).

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [ODFW]. 2016. Oregon conservation 

strategy. http://www.oregonconservationstrategy.org. (19 August 2017).

Oregon Department of State Lands [ODSL]. 2017. Draft rule for state general 

permit for certain activities promoting waterway-floodplain connectivity. 

Salem, OR: Department of State Lands. 8 p. http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/Laws/

Documents/DIV93_Public_Draft_Rule.pdf. (5 July 2017). 

Petro, V.; Taylor, J.; Sanchez, D. 2015. Evaluating landowner-based beaver 

relocation as a tool to restore salmon habitat. Global Ecology and Conservation. 

3: 477–486.

Pollock, M. 2016. Personal communication. Research scientist, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 7600 Sand Point 

Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115. 

Pollock, M.M.; Beechie, T.J.; Jordan, C.E. 2007. Geomorphic changes upstream 

of beaver dams in Bridge Creek, an incised stream in the interior Columbia River 

basin. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 32: 1174–1185. doi: 10.1007/

s00267-017-0957-6,

Pollock, M.M.; Beechie, T.; Wheaton, J.; Jordan, C.; Bouwes, N.; 

Weber, N.; Volk, C.; 2014. Using beaver dams to restore incised stream 

ecosystems. BioScience 64(4): 279–290.

Pollock, M.M.; Lewallen, G.M.; Woodruff, K.; Jordan, C.E.; Castro, J.M., eds. 

2017. The beaver restoration guidebook: working with beaver to restore streams, 

wetlands, and floodplains. Version 2.0. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 219 p. https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/promo.cfm?id=177175812.

(17 August 2017). 
25

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

Pollock, M.M.; Wheaton, J.M.; Bouwes, N.; Volk, C.; Weber, N.; Jordan, 

C.E. 2012. Working with beaver to restore salmon habitat in the Bridge Creek 

intensively monitored watershed: design rationale and hypotheses. Tech. Memo. 

NMFS NWFSC-120. [Place of publication unknown]: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 47 p. 

Porter, T. 2017. Personal communication. Assistant fisheries biologist,

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2042 SE Paulina Highway,

Prineville, OR 97754.

Portugal, E.; Wheaton, J.M.; Bouwes, N. 2015. Pine Creek watershed design report 

for pilot restoration: using beaver dam analogues and high-density large woody 

debris to initiate process-based stream recovery. Prepared for the Confederated 

Tribes of Warm Springs. Logan, UT: Eco Logical Research. 35 p.

Salant, N.; Schmidt, J.C.; Budy, P.; Wilcock, P. 2012. Unintended consequences 

of restoration: loss of riffles and gravel substrates following weir installation. 

Journal of Environmental Management. 109: 154–163.

Santana, C. 2017. Personal communication. Wildlife biologist, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 625 SE Salmon Street. 

Redmond, OR 97756. 

Steubner, S. 1992. Leave it to the beaver. High Country News.

August 24. 24(15): 5–7. https://www.hcn.org/issues/24.15/download-entire-issue

Swafford, S.; Nolte, D.; Goodwin, K.; Sloan, C.; Jones, J. 2003. Beaver 

population size estimation in Mississippi. In: Fagerstone, K.A.; Witmer, G.W., 

eds. Proceedings from the 10th wildlife damage management conference. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, National Wildlife Research Center. 277: 398–407.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[USDA APHIS]. 2014. Program data reports G: Oregon 2010–2014. https://www.

aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/SA_Reports/SA_PDRs.

(17 December 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012. Aquatic 

restoration environmental assessment. John Day, OR: Malheur National Forest. 

203 p. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3817700.pdf.

(19 August 2017).
26

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2016. Camp 

Creek final project reporting outline. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_

DOCUMENTS/fseprd534877.pdf. (19 August 2017).

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

[USDA NRCS]. 2016a. Regional Conservation Partnership Program. High Desert 

Drought Resilient Ranching Project. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/

detail/or/programs/farmbill/rcpp/?cid =nrcseprd628607. (7 June 2018). 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

[USDA NRCS]. 2016b. SGI mesic habitat conservation planning guide. sage 

grouse initiative. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/CO/SGI_Mesic_

Guide_5-22-16.pdf. (7 June 2018). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [USDC NOAA]. 2008. Endangered Species Act section 

7, consultation and biological opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, essential fish habitat consultation. Bridge 

Creek 34 Restoration and Monitoring Project, Bridge Creek (1707020403), 

Wheeler County, Oregon. Portland, OR: Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

NMFS Northwest Regional Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. [USDC NOAA]. 2013. Endangered Species Act Section 7, 

programmatic consultation conference and biological opinion, and MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Reinitiation of Aquatic 

Restoration Activities in States of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II). NWR2013-9664. Seattle, WA: National Marine Fisheries Service, 209 p.

https://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/nmfs-arboii.pdf.

(12 December 2017).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [USDI BLM]. 

1996. Decision record, Sutton Mountain coordinated resource management 

plan (CRMP). Prineville, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programatic biological opinion for Bonneville 

Power Administration’s Columbia River basin habitat improvement program 

(HIP-III). 2013-F-0199. Portland, OR: Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. 360 p. 

https://www.bpa.gov/efw/Analysis/NEPADocuments/esa/USFWS_HIP_III_BO_

Signed_FINAL.pdf. (12 March 2018).
27

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

Weber, N. 2016. Personal communication. Research ecologist, Eco Logical 

Research, Inc, 1458 NW College Way, Bend, OR 97701.

Weber, N.; Bouwes, N.; Pollock, M.; Volk, C.; Wheaton, J.; Wathen, G.; 

Jordan, C. 2017. Alteration of stream temperature by natural and artificial 

beaver dams. PLoS ONE. 12(5): E0176313. 

Winters, H. 2017. Personal communication. District co-manager and riparian 

buffer specialist, Gilliam Soil and Water Conservation District, 333 S Main St, 

Condon, OR 97823.
28

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-617

Appendix

The following projects were designed in full or in part by the research scientists involved with the Bridge Creek 

intensively monitored watershed (IMW), and initiated based on lessons learned from the Bridge Creek and Asotin Creek IMWs. The projects are directly related to either methods that promote beavers and the construction of 

beaver dam analogues, or methods to increase large woody debris loading to improve hydraulic and geomorphic 

diversity and reconnect floodplains using post-assisted log structures.

Stream State Objective

Bear Creek OR Designed to test the effectiveness of beaver dam analogues (BDAs) in restoring 

perennial flow to 1 km of an intermittent stream channel tributary to Bridge Creek. 

During August of 2017, 20 BDAs installed.

Beech Creek OR The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) installed BDAs to increase 

habitat complexity for steelhead. The ODFW designed the project based on the 

BDA work at Bridge Creek.

Nehalem River OR A BDA project was implemented by Upper Nehalam Watershed Council and ODFW 

to demonstrate the utility of BDAs for restoring coho habitat on state forest land. 

Test structures were installed in 2017, full implementation is planned for 2018.

Pine Creek OR Project aims to improve steelhead and riparian habitat in an incised channel with a 

much less competent flow regime than Bridge Creek. Main partners are the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and the Oregon Natural Desert Association.

South Fork Crooked River OR The goal is to restore 8 km of stream using BDAs to reconnect the floodplain, recruit riparian vegetation, increase water storage, and create suitable beaver habitat. 

Pilot structures installed in summer 2015, full implementation in 2016–2018.

Alpowa Creek WA 87 post-assisted log structures (PALS) installed in 2014 to improve steelhead 

habitat; also used posts and small trees to improve bank protection on 1.2 km of 

streambank. Work carried out in cooperation with the Public Utility Department, 

Clarkston, Washington.

Asotin Creek WA The goal of this project is to promote a more dynamic and complex creek to 

improve rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead. Created high-density large woody debris using PALS with 4 years of treatment in three streams totaling 12 km and over 

540 structures.

Little Tucannon River WA Proposal with the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to install PALS in the lower 2 

km of the watershed in 2016 to improve steelhead habitat.

Methow River WA Focused on translocating beaver into the upper portions of the watershed in the 

Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Project staff have collaborated in workshops 

and on developing guidance for linking translocation with BDA installation.

North Fork Palouse River WA PALS are being used for bank protection in an effort to stabilize bank erosion. This 

is a prerequisite for getting funds to plant riparian vegetation.

Pataha Creek WA The project aims to restore steelhead habitat in a heavily incised channel. Main partner is the Pomeroy Conservation District, and some local Natural Resources Conservation Service and Watershed Councils. Funding secured to install 100 BDAs in 

2016–2017 based on results of the Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool model.
29

Using Beaver Dam Analogues for Fish and Wildlife Recovery on Public and Private Rangelands in Eastern Oregon

Stream State Objective

Penawawa Creek WA Proposal with the Salmon Recovery Funding Board to install BDAs and PALS to 

improve steelhead habitat.

South Fork Palouse River WA PALS are being used to help stabilize bank erosion; BDAs are being used to

improve water retention near intensive riparian planting sites.

Squaw and Rock Creeks WA A BDA and PALS project was planned for implementation in 2018 by the Central 

Klickitat and North Yakima Conservation Districts. Bridge Creek project staff are 

involved in the planning and design of the project.

Triple Creek WA A BDA project was implemented in 2016–2017 by the Okanogan Highlands

Alliance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Trout Unlimited. Project 

staff have been involved in the planning and design of the project.

Wenas Creek WA Ten BDAs were installed by the North Yakima Conservation District to reconnect 

the floodplain and improve aquatic and riparian habitat.

Basin Creek UT Thirty pilot structures were installed on 2 km of one stream in 2014; another 40 to 

50 were planned in 2015 on another tributary in the same system. Monitoring is ongoing. This is primarily targeted at improving forage for cattle, instream habitat for 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and brood rearing habitat for sage grouse. Partners are 

two ranchers (it is private property) and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.

Curtis Creek UT An adaptive beaver management plan for Harware Ranch Wildlife Management 

Area to mitigate impacts to ranch infrastructure and demonstrate “living with

beaver” strategies. Built in spring 2016.

Grouse Creek UT A large-scale demonstration project planned on 20+ km of streams in Grouse Creek 

drainage with Tanner Family Ranches.

Park City UT An adaptive beaver management plan for the city adopted in 2012; structures have 

been in place since then.

San Rafael River UT A large-scale pilot implementation project planned for 50 BDA structures to restore 

degraded habitat to benefit three listed suckers in a moderately incised stream. 

Partners are the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources.

Spring Creek UT The project purpose is to mitigate potential flooding and harvest impacts of beavers 

in an urban area, specifically Walmart. Partners are Bear River Watershed Council, 

Walmart, and the City of Logan. Constructed in 2016.

Scott River CA The project goal is to restore critical habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed coho 

salmon. The Scott River Watershed Council installed BDAs with funding from the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the USFWS.

Birch Creek ID The project is targeted at restoring hydrologic perennial flows and restoring Bonneville cutthroat trout. Beavers were translocated, several BDAs were built, and a 

workshop for Natural Resources Conservation Service staff working on the Sage 

Grouse Initiative was hosted in 2016.

OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, UT = Utah, CA = California, ID= Idaho.

Source: Chris Jordan.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Bridge Creek researcher..

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2100

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

	 	 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890

	 	 Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 1400

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300