United States Department of Agriculture

Northwest Climate Hub

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Paper

PNW-RP-611 February

2019

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee 

County, Idaho: Opportunities and 

Challenges

Jesse Abrams, Michael Johnduff, and Susan Charnley
Authors

Jesse Abrams is an assistant professor, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural 

Resources and Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, 180 E Green Street, Athens, 

GA 30602-2152 (formerly a research associate, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, 130 Hendricks Hall, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403); Michael 

Johnduff was a research assistant a research assistant, Institute for a Sustainable 

Environment, 130 Hendricks Hall, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; Susan 

Charnley is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW Main Street, Portland, OR 

97205.

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

Abrams, Jesse; Johnduff, Michael; Charnley, Susan 2018. Beaver-related 

restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: opportunities and challenges. Res. Pap. 

PNW-RP-611. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21 p. 

Owyhee County, Idaho, covers much of the Owyhee Uplands, an arid landscape 

characterized by sagebrush habitat where cattle grazing is a dominant land use. 

Because this landscape is home to many sensitive sagebrush-obligate species as 

well as species that require high-quality riparian and aquatic habitat, it has garnered 

attention from state and federal wildlife agencies and various nongovernmental 

organizations (NGOs) interested in restoring and conserving habitat on working 

landscapes. The installation of beaver dam-like structures such as beaver dam 

analogues, and the reintroduction of beaver (Castor canadensis) through translocation or natural recolonization, have been examined as possible tools to accomplish 

these objectives. The purpose of this exploratory study is to understand the 

opportunities and challenges associated with beaver-related restoration in Owyhee 

County rangeland systems. The findings presented here, based on interviews with 

19 Owyhee County landowners, ranchers, and key stakeholders, suggest that there 

are opportunities for increasing restoration activities that incorporate beaver dam 

analogues and other beaver-related restoration techniques. Specifically, an overall 

positive perception of beavers on the part of interviewed producers (as long as the 

beavers stay away from irrigation infrastructure); the potential overlap between 

conservation goals and livestock production benefits of watershed restoration; the 

goodwill created by previous cooperative projects involving federal, state, NGO, 

and private entities; and the grant and cost-share funding opportunities available for 

beaver-related projects all point toward opportunities to reconcile restoration and 

cattle production interests. However, many challenges were also identified, such as 

concerns regarding regulations and liability—including the liability arising from 

the creation of threatened or endangered species habitat—and potential conflict 

regarding the degree and kind of grazing management changes that would be 

needed to set the stage for long-term riparian habitat improvement. 

Keywords: Beaver, Columbia spotted frog, perceptions, ranching, rangeland, 

watershed restoration.
Contents

1 Introduction

3 Methods

3 Owyhee County

6 Opportunities for Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County

6 Benefits Associated With Beavers

8 Positive Experiences With Partnerships

8 Availability of Technical and Financial Assistance

9 Challenges for Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County

10 Threats to Irrigation

10 Challenges to Livestock Operations 

11 Undesirable Landscape Alterations

12 Liability for Habitats Restored

13 Unfavorable Conditions for Beaver

15 Regulatory and Permitting Issues

18 Conclusions

19 Acknowledgments

20 Literature Cited
1

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

Introduction

Recent years have seen increased interest in watershed restoration in the Western 

United States, including in arid rangeland ecosystems. The translocation of beaver 

(Castor canadensis) and installation of structures that simulate beaver dams have 

been used with the goals of restoring incised streams, improving aquatic habitat for 

fish, reestablishing floodplain connectivity, promoting riparian vegetation, and creating wetland habitat (Bouwes et al. 2016, Pilliod et al. 2018). In Owyhee County, 

located in the arid southwestern corner of Idaho (fig. 1), beaver-related restoration 

has been championed by a number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and 

government agencies working in habitat restoration and watershed management 

because of its potential to meet diverse wildlife habitat and conservation objectives 

(IDFG 2016, USDI FWS 2017). 

The Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan identifies conservation benefits associated 

with beaver and directs the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to maximize beaver dam densities in appropriate areas in the Owyhee Uplands to support 

habitat and wildlife conservation (IDFG 2016). Benefits of beaver and beaver dams 

identified in the plan include supporting aquatic and riparian habitat for “species 

of greatest conservation need”—species in need of certain specified degrees of 

support to prevent an Endangered Species Act listing—such as the Columbia 

spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), and various bird 

and bat species. The Owyhee Uplands also constitute a priority conservation area of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because of the presence of diverse habitats that 

support sagebrush-obligate species (USDI FWS 2017). Additionally, the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has developed a regional conservation 

partnership program to increase ranching resilience to drought that includes parts 

of Owyhee County as well as neighboring areas of Oregon and Nevada.

To date, only limited beaver-related restoration activity has occurred in Owyhee 

County. This activity has focused on Stoneman Creek in the western part of the 

county, where a beaver dam on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land was 

reconstructed and beaver were reintroduced in 2001 (Lingo 2013), in addition to 

individual cases of landowners reconstructing dams on their own properties. Other 

off-stream wetland construction projects have been implemented to benefit Columbia spotted frog populations, and beaver have naturally recolonized many areas 

on their own. The purpose of this study is to identify opportunities and challenges 

related to beaver-related restoration in Owyhee County and to improve understanding of what is needed to facilitate implementation of these restoration approaches 

from a social and regulatory standpoint. The focus of this report is on landowners’ 
2

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

Figure 1—Owyhee County, Idaho.
3

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

and ranchers’ perspectives on the challenges and opportunities associated with 

beaver-related restoration, which will likely occur either on private ranches or on 

public lands where ranchers have grazing allotments. 

Methods

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

assess the social, hydrological, and ecological effects associated with beaver-related 

watershed restoration of incised streams in rangelands of the Western United 

States. We chose Owyhee County as a study site because of the strong local interest 

among agencies and NGOs in implementing this approach. Our analysis is based 

upon a review of relevant literature and 16 interviews with 19 Owyhee County key 

informants (13 ranchers/landowners and six state, federal, or NGO representatives 

who work with ranchers/landowners). Interviewees were chosen purposively based 

on their actual or potential experience with beaver or riparian restoration. We 

attempted to gather a wide range of perspectives on the opportunities and challenges related to beavers and watershed restoration; however, their perspectives 

should not be considered representative because they were not selected as a random 

or representative sample of defined populations. Following a research protocol 

approval by the Institutional Review Board of Oregon State University, researchers 

developed a list of potential interviewees based on suggestions from state and federal wildlife agency contacts as well as from prior research experience in Owyhee 

County (Abrams et al. 2017). Interviews were conducted during two separate field 

visits to Owyhee County (in April and August of 2017) and, in some cases, via 

telephone. Some interviews also included site tours of ranches and riparian areas. 

We used a semistructured interview protocol, consisting of a series of guiding questions with the possibility for followup questions as the need arose. Interviews were 

audio recorded with the consent of the interviewees; detailed notes were taken in 

cases where an individual preferred not to be recorded. Interview audio files were 

transcribed verbatim and reviewed to generate the broad findings reported here. 

Owyhee County

Owyhee County occupies 4.9 million ac (1 982 959 ha) of land (fig. 1). The vast 

majority (85 percent) of Owyhee County’s land base is public, primarily managed 

by the BLM; approximately 78 percent of the county is under federal ownership, 

and nearly 7 percent is state owned. Only about 12 percent of the county is under 

private ownership. The 2016 population estimate of Owyhee County was 11,389, 

representing a 36 percent increase from 1990. Its major towns are Homedale, 
4

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

Figure 2—Sagebrush steppe habitat covers much of Owyhee County. Photo taken near upper 

Reynolds Creek.

Jesse Abrams

Marsing, Murphy, Grand View, and Bruneau, the largest of which is Homedale, 

with a population of a little more than 2,500. However, the county lies relatively 

close to Idaho’s largest population center, the “Treasure Valley” of Boise/Meridian/Caldwell/Nampa, and as such, sees a substantial amount of recreational use, 

particularly by motorized recreationists. 

Water management is integral to land stewardship in this semiarid territory, 

particularly given the importance of irrigation for the production of row crops, hay, 

and irrigated pasture. Average annual precipitation ranges from 6 in (2.5 cm) in 

Bruneau to 30 in (76 cm) in the Owyhee Mountains at Afterthought Mine (Owyhee 

County 2015). More than 303 identified waterways run through the county, making 

up approximately 107,651 linear mi of river (173 247 km) (IASCD/ISCC 2004). 

Owyhee County’s large expanses of sagebrush steppe habitat (fig. 2), together 

with a growing mining industry, led to livestock ranching becoming the predominant activity during the Euro-American settlement period of the late 19th and early 

20th centuries. Settlers generally selected land near waterways for their private 

ranch properties, with large expanses of arid uplands being retained under federal 
5

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

ownership. The Owyhee country was used extensively by sheep outfits in the late 

19th and early 20th centuries; beef cattle became more prevalent by the mid-20th

century in response to changing markets for food and wool (Idaho State Historical 

Society 1973). Grazing of beef cattle is currently the predominant land use throughout most of Owyhee County’s arid rangelands; irrigated row-crop production occurs 

on the county’s northern edge near the Snake River, and dairy production is also 

important economically. Lewin et al. (2014) estimated that there are 45,660 beef 

cattle in Owyhee County, with a total economic output in the ranching and feedlot 

sector of $129.9 million. They calculated the base contribution of this sector as 13.7 

percent of total employment, 22.5 percent of total cash receipts, and 16 percent of 

county gross product (Lewin et al. 2014: 15).

Ranching practices directly depend upon, and can have an impact on, rangeland 

waterways and riparian areas. Water for irrigation is a key resource for livestock 

operators who must grow (or purchase) hay to feed their herds over the winter. Water 

for cattle is crucial on the expansive, largely arid landscapes on which livestock 

graze. A persistent challenge on these landscapes is the maintenance of riparian 

vegetation, given that lush streamside vegetation is prone to being heavily grazed, 

resulting in streambank instability, downcutting, and erosion (IASCD/ISCC 2004). 

Erosion may also be exacerbated by the absence of beavers on the landscape. 

The Snake River area was an epicenter of fur trapping as early as 1816, when the 

Hudson’s Bay Company sent brigades throughout the Snake River drainage. Their 

goal was to create a “fur desert” to block competing fur companies from gaining 

a foothold in the Interior West. This activity largely came to an end by 1840, but 

the ecological impacts of beaver extirpation continued to be felt for decades. Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality reports show that loss of beaver dams in the 

19th century directly increased stream channelization and led to decreased wetland 

area in many watersheds across Owyhee County (Shock et al. 2011). Given the historical presence of beaver in Owyhee County and their potential to reduce stream 

incision and help restore riparian vegetation, there is growing interest in using 

beaver and beaver dam-like structures in local restoration efforts. Much of this 

interest is related to the high quality of wildlife habitat in this remote and relatively 

undeveloped area, despite some evidence of habitat degradation over time (IDFG 

2016, USDI FWS 2017). Beaver-related restoration may also have the potential to 

promote ranching resilience to drought by increasing forage production in riparian 

pastures and improving streamflows (Davee et al. 2017).
6

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

Opportunities for Beaver-Related Restoration in 

Owyhee County

Interviews with Owyhee County ranchers, landowners, land managers, and project 

partners revealed potential opportunities for integrating beavers and beaver-related 

structures into rangeland watershed restoration. These stakeholder-identified 

opportunities include recognition of the benefits of beavers, positive experiences 

with past restoration partnerships, and the availability of technical and financial 

assistance to support beaver-related restoration and grazing management more 

broadly. Here we summarize the most relevant findings from stakeholder interviews 

on these topics. 

Benefits Associated With Beavers

Opinions of beavers among interviewed landowners and ranchers were typically 

neutral to favorable. Interviewees often responded that they had positive associations with beaver and few felt that grazing operations would be negatively affected 

by the presence of beaver or their structures. Benefits observed by ranchers and 

landowners included the creation of wet meadows, the retention of water in streams 

later in the summer season, the reduction of stream velocity and consequently of 

erosive potential, and the creation of wildlife habitat for sensitive species. One 

rancher described the outcome of an effort to rehabilitate abandoned beaver dams 

on his property:

It worked well for everything because, one, it provided water, year-round 

water all the time, which is a godsend for wildlife, for my cattle, everything. Two, it enhanced the wet meadows that were there, so you had better 

forage production for cattle, wildlife, everything else. Three, it helped 

with spotted frogs...that was one of the species that I was building for just 

so that I wouldn’t have those problems, regulatory problems in the future 

that if you build habitat they’ll come. That’s the same way with the beaver 

(interview 2).

Indeed, many ranchers and landowners credited past wetland construction 

projects with increasing Columbia spotted frog populations and thereby avoiding 

an Endangered Species Act listing. These past projects were generally not beaverrelated restoration projects specifically; rather, they tended to be offstream pond 

installation projects encouraged by state or federal wildlife agencies. In some cases, 

landowners chose to install these wetlands without specific financial support from 

public entities. They also typically viewed beaver and their dams as creating habitat 

benefits for sensitive species.
7

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

Some landowners and ranchers saw the potential of beaver as ecosystem 

engineers:

Well, we were thrilled to see the beaver come in because we felt that while, 

I don’t know, growing up on a ranch, we kinda knew what they could do...

My brother was like, “Oh, no, they’re gonna clog up all the irrigation.” We 

just worked with it. We just worked with it, and they did. They did clog 

things up here and there. You know, I hate to lose trees. [But] it was strictly 

about improving our waterways and our wetlands, yeah, and in a physical 

manner (interview 4). 

One ranching couple described their positive associations with the beaver that currently inhabit their BLM grazing allotment:

Male: ...even if I could, I wouldn’t remove them from where they’re at, just 

because I think it’s a—to back that water up and keep the—I think it’s a 

good thing in most places.

Female: You see elk or deer or antelope, or all the wildlife, including—and 

the cows all drinking from that big pond. They’d rather drink from that 

freshwater pond than mud (interview 13).

Many interviewees observed that beaver are relatively abundant within the broader 

landscape and often recolonize on their own, given appropriate habitat conditions. 

For example, interviewees near the site of the Stoneman Creek reconstructed 

beaver dam and beaver translocation said that “beaver were starting to make their 

comeback big time” even before the project, and that “populations have really 

exploded” since then (interview 14). Other interviewees described beaver recolonizing naturally after artificial ponds had been installed on their properties. In other 

cases, landowners expressed interest in installing artificial structures as a means of 

creating more attractive conditions for natural beaver recolonization:

When you turn a beaver loose in a wild situation and there’s no dams, they 

can wander a long time before they find a spot that they feel comfortable 

with. We hope that what we can do is find spots that they’re comfortable 

with and have something there for them to go to that they’ll immediately 

finish the project and become permanent...They help slow the velocity of 

the stream down. That just in itself helps recharge the aquifer. Hopefully 

[installation of artificial structures will] give the attraction for the beaver to 

come in and settle (interview 9).
8

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

Positive Experiences With Partnerships

Although some landowners undertake beaver-related restoration projects on their 

own (e.g., Davee et al. 2017), implementing these projects often involves partnerships between agencies, NGOs, and other stakeholders (including landowners when 

it occurs on private lands). Interviewed landowners expressed some reservations 

about conducting work in partnership with state or federal agencies or NGOs, but 

many had positive prior experiences partnering on restoration efforts. One landowner praised the way that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was willing to undertake agreements that were not overly bureaucratic: “They did a page-and-a-half or 

two-page agreement. It wasn’t a 90-some page, that most governments [do]... This 

was simple, plain and to the point. Even on the wetlands, it was just a page-and-ahalf, two pages” (interview 5). Another rancher opined, “There’s a lot of mistrust of 

the government, period. The actions of the people, at least in the Boise [office of the 

U.S.] Fish and Wildlife Service, has been remarkable. Very trustworthy... They’ve 

been very straightforward and their actions speak for themselves” (interview 7). 

Availability of Technical and Financial Assistance

External funding was often seen as critical for implementing restoration activities 

on private lands: “as far as any funding coming about for that because it’s not something we’d endeavor on our own because there’s just no economic way to justify it.” 

(Interview 4). “Money’s always tight on a ranch. We always wanna do—ranchers 

always wanna do the right thing and do the right thing for habitat, everything else 

for wildlife, but all of that costs money. It comes out of your pocket, even on costshare projects, things like that, NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] 

type things” (interview 2). Technical assistance with implementing restoration 

approaches for which landowners might not have expertise is also important. Several nonregulatory entities provide financial support or technical advice regarding 

water and watershed management, which can help landowners implement beaverrelated restoration and adjust grazing practices so that they are complementary to 

restoration goals. These entities include the following:

• The Idaho Office of Species Conservation was created to coordinate private and governmental interests to protect sensitive species and to provide 

resources for planning within subbasins and watersheds.

• The NRCS provides financial and technical assistance for various conservation programs on private production lands.

• A variety of NGOs, including Trout Unlimited, the Owyhee Watershed 

Council, Ducks Unlimited, and The Nature Conservancy, are active in supporting restoration and habitat improvement efforts on ranches and public lands.
9

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

Interviewees enumerated several possible sources of grant and cost-share funding for beaver-related restoration projects. Funding associated with the Sage Grouse 

Initiative was mentioned in several interviews as a potential source of financial 

support. This is because wet meadow restoration (resulting from the addition of 

beaver dams or beaver dam analogues1) can provide benefits to greater sage grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) populations. Sage Grouse Initiative funds have 

already been used to support the removal of juniper, a practice that has been found 

to increase streamflow and thereby improve conditions for watershed restoration. 

The NRCS recently authorized funding for “post line-wicker weave” structures as 

well as Zeedyk (rock) structures as part of its farm conservation programs in Idaho 

(the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship 

Program). Both the post line-wicker weave and Zeedyk structures represent lowcost instream structures that perform functions similar to beaver dams. At the time 

of our interviews, however, neither of these techniques had yet been funded by the 

NRCS in Owyhee County.

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is beginning to pilot beaver-related 

restoration projects through its Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, in which the 

agency provides funding and technical assistance to achieve habitat restoration and 

conservation on private and tribal lands. Permitting is currently underway for a demonstration project using beaver dam analogues in Owyhee County on one landowner’s 

ranch. Other projects underway, supported by various federal and nonprofit entities, 

entail the construction of offsite watering sources for livestock to prevent them from 

lingering in the riparian zone as well as cross-fencing projects that will allow ranchers 

to more easily control the amount of time their herds spend in particular areas. 

Challenges for Beaver-Related Restoration in

Owyhee County

 Although interviewees described opportunities for beaver-related restoration, they 

also identified challenges to implementing it. These include the potential complications beavers pose to irrigation systems and livestock operations, undesirable 

landscape alterations made by beaver, potential liability for restoring habitat for 

sensitive and threatened species on private lands, environmental conditions unsuitable to beaver, and regulatory and permitting issues. 

1

 A beaver dam analogue is a low-profile structure within a waterway constructed from 

organic material, and which may be supplemented by material from the stream bed and 

banks, in a manner designed to mimic the hydrological, geomorphological, and ecological 

functions of natural beaver dams.
10

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

Threats to Irrigation

Livestock operators in Owyhee County rely on irrigation for growing hay and for 

watering irrigated pasture. Most of the complaints regarding beavers had to do with 

their impacts on irrigation infrastructure. “That’s the biggest point of my complaint 

with them. The creek’s way down late in the summer. You still got a little bit of water 

coming. They’ll get in there and dam off your head gate. Shut your water off. You go 

out there, open it up. They’re back in there that night” (interview 7). Many landowners and ranchers made a distinction between the effects of beavers in upland, nonirrigated areas (which were seen as largely positive) and their impacts in irrigated 

areas or near irrigation infrastructure (which were overwhelmingly negative).

Another worry was simply that an influx of beavers could choose to dam 

certain areas inconvenient for landowners: “Where they’re situated on the creek, 

say if they dammed it here, it would not be good. I mean, you’d have water backing up into places you don’t want it. Where they are [currently], it’s not an issue 

at all” (interview 4). Another rancher related, “once in a while, they’ll be in a bad 

place where they’ll just flood a field and drown out your crops. They have to be 

removed then. Other than that, they—I kinda like ‘em to keep the creek checked 

up” (interview 13). 

Challenges to Livestock Operations

Interviewees listed some concerns related to the impacts of beaver translocation 

or installation of beaver dam-mimicking structures on their livestock operations. 

The wet meadows that are created with the installation of artificial beaver dams 

or beaver dam analogues can lead to problems with livestock becoming stuck in 

deep mud. The flooding associated with dams can also complicate the movement 

of vehicles and horses across the landscape and can result in some loss of pasture. 

Perhaps more importantly, some ranchers expressed concerns regarding mandatory 

changes to their grazing practices that might be required as a condition for obtaining funding for restoration projects on private lands—changes such as building 

riparian exclosures to keep cattle out of riparian areas and revisions to grazing 

management plans.

At the same time, some representatives of public agencies felt that the introduction of beavers or beaver-related structures would likely be insufficient for 

promoting restoration if not accompanied by changes to grazing practices. One 

representative said this can be a formidable challenge:

Implementing any sort of infrastructure in the streams to prevent or reduce 

the incision that’s occurring really needs to be coupled with a change in 
11

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

management so that we’re protecting that area... It’s often pulling teeth to 

get those other things accomplished, or it’s typically the last thing that gets 

done and requires a lot of follow-up (interview 15). 

In some cases, ranchers were already managing in ways that they felt would 

be compatible with beaver-related restoration: “We operate our ranch, which could 

help this program, on what we call a rest rotation for our cattle. There’s areas that 

we won’t graze for quite a while, then we rotate the animals on a rest rotation. I 

don’t see that the cow would interfere a lot with any beaver dam or population” 

(interview 9).

Undesirable Landscape Alterations

Some respondents felt that beavers had little discretion in their use of materials 

for dam building, and that their activities can cause substantial alterations to the 

watershed and landscape. “They’ll take every tree,” as one landowner said, citing 

one instance where he witnessed a beaver cross a road 200 ft (70 m) from the water 

to work on a tree. “The trees all help hold the banks and help hold some material 

behind. In that situation, they’re actually counterproductive to everything the 

conservation people say that they’ll do” (interview 10). Another rancher felt that 

hardwood trees were relatively uncommon in the arid landscape of Owyhee County 

and lamented that beaver would kill and fell them. In other cases, respondents 

expressed concern that beaver dams can and will wash out during heavy water 

years, potentially causing problems downstream. According to one rancher, “Our 

experience with beavers are they’re pretty good as long as they stay where they 

belong—but they will eat all of their habitat, themselves out, and then if you get a 

catastrophic event of water, it just washes them dams out and causes more trouble 

than what it was to start with” (interview 14). 

The one Owyhee County example of dam installation and beaver introduction, 

the Stoneman Creek dam reconstruction and beaver translocation effort, also suffered from some undesirable outcomes owing to a lack of maintenance, according 

to interviewees in the vicinity:

The majority of [the installed structures], the water went right around the 

end of them and just washed a deeper hole than what it started with...[the 

BLM] took and cut juniper trees, and they physically made dams...They 

worked good as long as they maintained them. They held the silt, but as 

soon as they quit maintaining them, they just washed out. It would have 

taken very little maintenance to keep them up (interview 14).
12

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

Liability for Habitats Restored

One reason beaver-related restoration is growing in popularity among state and 

federal agencies is that it could benefit sensitive species such as the Columbia 

spotted frog and western toad, among others (IDFG 2016) and help to prevent them 

from being listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

Although none of the species that could benefit from beaver-related restoration 

in Owyhee County are currently listed as threatened or endangered, fear of the 

repercussions of having one or more of them listed was a theme throughout many 

interviews with ranchers and landowners. An Endangered Species Act listing, as 

well as the designation of critical habitat for listed species, could potentially result 

in land use restrictions that could complicate livestock grazing and related activities 

on both public and private lands. It should be noted that there are also tools, such 

as the Safe Harbor Program, that protect landowners from liability if they create or 

improve habitat for listed species. In addition, candidate conservation agreements 

with assurances can be used to protect landowners from additional obligations 

should a candidate species become listed. Nevertheless, the prospect of liability 

associated with attracting or encouraging sensitive species concerned several 

interviewed ranchers.

Many landowners saw beaver restoration as related to sensitive species preservation, and viewed many of their activities through that lens. Thus, a prevalent 

concern was about what could happen once restoration projects are completed. “I 

think it has to start somewhere. I mean, we’re not about getting rid of endangered 

species,” one rancher explained. But “sometimes you have kind of like a little 

touchy feeling about, well, do we even want to promote an endangered species 

because then what?” (interview 4). As one empathizing expert said, “Somebody is 

telling you all of a sudden you’ve got to limit what you’re doing so you can preserve 

the species that you’ve created...the habitat for” (interview 3). 

Some interviewees described past riparian conservation projects that entailed 

riparian fencing; this was generally assessed as being too successful in eliminating 

grazing and thus resulting in the accumulation of dead vegetation. With respect 

to Columbia spotted frog protection, which was seen as a related effort by many 

ranchers, some interviewees felt that maintenance of the habitat alone would be 

difficult. For example, one rancher expressed concern about a hypothetical plan to 

fence constructed wetlands benefiting Columbia spotted frogs:

...At that altitude, there’s no way you can maintain a fence around each one 

of these ponds, because of the snow [they] would collapse and I’d spend 

all my time building a fence around those. The cattle have to have access 
13

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

to them... [There’s] always been access to the beaver ponds and the other 

natural ponds up there anyway (interview 7).

This particular concern may have been triggered by research findings that 

cattle exclusion from ponds and riparian areas benefit Columbia spotted frog 

populations (Pilliod and Scherer 2015).

In addition to the regulatory implications of sensitive species protection, several 

interviewees expressed concern that financial assistance programs may come with 

“strings attached”—additional requirements or restrictions that impinge on landowner autonomy. For this reason, some interviewees described installing offstream 

wetlands on their properties using their own equipment and funding, rather than 

accepting financial support that they felt might ultimately result in reduced decisionmaking discretion. For example, an interviewed ranching couple described their 

process of installing offstream ponds for spotted frog benefit:

Male: Well, you know, [the ponds are] small, but we try to make them deep 

and in the right places. Then, that was the one [the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service] offered us a contract. They offered to pay for it, but it—

Female: So many strings [attached].

Male: We told [the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative], “You can 

come and look and study if you want, but we don’t want to sign anything. 

We’ll just do it” (interview 13).

Unfavorable Conditions for Beaver

Where artificial structures mimicking beaver dams are used as a restoration tool, 

a common goal is to encourage beaver to eventually move in on their own and 

take over the structures, or build their own dams. However, not all watersheds 

are necessarily well suited to benefit from this kind of intervention. The lack of 

year-round water in some drainages was perceived to be a major impediment to the 

establishment and maintenance of beaver populations. Many streams in Owyhee 

County are ephemeral and water is scarce. “They need a lot of water,” one rancher 

said, describing an attempt to attract beavers to establish on his private ranch 

property. “We had all of the food source, all of that. They [beavers] just didn’t have 

enough water” (interview 2). Stream incision and a lack of woody riparian vegetation in many areas also make for poor beaver habitat (fig. 3). In some areas, riparian 

vegetation has been hit hard by grazing; in others, by recent wildfires (fig. 4). This 

suggests that some areas may need changes in grazing management, installation of 

artificial structures, or active restoration to establish the needed riparian vegetation 
14

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

Figure 3—Castle Creek in northern Owyhee County, showing an absence of abundant woody

riparian vegetation.

 Jesse Abrams
15

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

for the eventual reappearance of beaver. In some cases, beaver reintroduction was 

thought to be of questionable benefit owing to the pressure on beaver populations 

placed by trapping (particularly on public lands) and predation by large predators 

such as mountain lions.

Some interviewees identified the need to conduct remedial restoration on 

streams before they would be ready for installation of artificial beaver dam-like 

structures and the eventual return of beavers themselves. This was echoed by one 

partner representative: 

I think that BDAs [beaver dam analogues] are a great tool when you have 

a stream which isn’t heavily incised or with major issues... I think there 

are definitely places out there that absolutely could benefit from it but then 

I also think that heavier restorations should be done on the larger streams 

(interview 12). 

These restoration activities were described as including the installation of rock, 

large wood, and “heavy vegetation planting.”

Regulatory and Permitting Issues

Interviewees regularly touched on concerns related to the regulatory context for 

watershed restoration. Regulatory and permitting issues related to beaver-related 

Figure 4—Much of the Owyhee County landscape was affected by the 2015 Soda Fire, which 

consumed riparian vegetation in some areas.

Jesse Abrams
16

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

restoration are linked to Idaho and federal water and wetland law and policy that 

affect the construction of beaver dam-like structures as well as beaver translocation. 

We provide an overview of these laws, policies, and the regulatory agencies below.

Roles of key entities—

Administration of the rights and obligations associated with management of Idaho 

waterways is divided among several federal and state authorities:

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for regulating the “taking” of any terrestrial or resident aquatic species listed under the federal 

Endangered Species Act as well as for the recovery of listed species and 

conservation and improvement of wildlife habitat generally.

• The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates activities that remove or add 

material to waterways designated as “navigable,” or those that are connected to such waterways.

• The Idaho Department of Water Resources has statutory responsibility for 

the appropriation and protection of surface and groundwater resources.

• The Idaho Water Resource Board is an entity formed to implement the state 

water plan within the Department of Water Resources, and suggests rules 

governing stream channel alteration.

• The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality regulates water in accordance with the Clean Water Act by establishing clean water standards and 

total maximum daily loads. 

• The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) regulates the taking of 

wildlife species (fishing, hunting, and trapping) and works to conserve nongame wildlife to preclude Endangered Species Act listings.

• The Idaho Department of Lands regulates and provides assistance on a 

number of issues related to forestry, fire, and land management and regulates state trust land, including the beds of navigable rivers and the bed and 

banks of navigable lakes.

The IDFG regulates the trapping of beavers; beaver trapping is prohibited on 

private lands without landowner permission and in certain designated places across 

the state. In the 2015–2016 season, 57 beavers were taken by licensed trappers in 

Owyhee County out of a total of 2,155 trapped statewide (Crea et al. 2017). Idaho 

Code requires the IDFG to investigate filed complaints about beaver dams. In 

such a case, the IDFG receives a determination from the Idaho Department of 

Water Resources regarding whether the dam activity is injuring water rights, and 

requires the recommendation of a watermaster about how to address the problem. 
17

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

If the analysis shows that water is being lost as a result of beaver activity in an 

amount that exceeds that lost prior to the construction of the dams, and that valid 

existing rights are deprived of water, the IDFG will take action to protect these 

rights. Removal of beaver structures is governed by a process set out by the Stream 

Channel Protection Act. 

For activities that may alter stream conditions, the Stream Channel Protection 

Act requires that a joint application permit to alter a stream in Idaho be issued by 

the Idaho Department of Water Resources, the Idaho Department of Lands, and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This applies to any alterations within the beds and 

banks of continuously flowing natural streams in the state. A permit is not required, 

however, to perform tasks associated with the maintenance of irrigation infrastructure, including the removal of beaver dams. 

Interviewees related that permitting and regulatory concerns were generally not 

considered to be barriers to projects conducted offstream or in seasonal drainages 

(as was the case with many of the constructed ponds designed for Columbia spotted 

frog habitat). However, permitting issues, specifically state and federal permitting 

under the Clean Water Act, loomed large for instream work conducted in perennial 

stream systems where beavers are most likely to be found or to recolonize, as well 

as on federal lands where environmental analysis requirements are greater. To date, 

these permitting issues have led to an emphasis on offstream work on private lands. 

“I think it’s easiest for...government agencies to get stuff done on private land 

because you don’t have to go through all the regulatory NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] and whatever else they do” (interview 4). One partner representative related frustration with trying to implement projects on federal land:

...[W]e have a lot of really coordinated boots on the ground but it’s a regulatory part of that that really hurts us being able to do [work on federal land]. 

To do a project we have to go through a legal process and all of that. I can tell 

you right now, every single one of those landowners would love nothing more 

than to be able to put some restoration work in on their BLM allotments... 

It’s just regulatory [issues] makes it almost impossible (interview 12).

To date, there have been relatively few attempted instream or federal lands 

watershed restoration projects in Owyhee County. Many interviewees felt that the 

BLM (which controls the majority of Owyhee County rangeland and public grazing 

allotments) was under such scrutiny by litigious organizations that it had relatively 

little flexibility to change grazing practices, even if those changes implied a net 

benefit for riparian conditions and associated wildlife. 
18

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

In general, interviewees appeared to be most interested in private land restoration projects owing to a combination of available funding and technical support, 

and what was perceived as a less demanding regulatory process when compared 

to federal lands. However, even on private lands, the time investment required to 

complete permitting requirements can complicate project implementation. According to a partner representative, it can be detrimental to a project:

I can tell you that waiting on permits is a real big issue for all the farmers. 

We’ll fund them a grant and if they have to wait a really long time to get a 

permit on something––I’ve got friends actually who had grants. The permitting process took so long, the landowner actually just nixed everything 

(interview 12).

It is not known from these interviews how common this particular scenario is, 

but it may be worth future research to clarify.

Conclusions

Interviews with ranchers, landowners, and agency representatives revealed substantial opportunities for beaver-related restoration on Owyhee County rangelands as 

well as some important challenges. Landowners said they perceived benefits to both 

wildlife and their own operations from wetland restoration generally and the activities of beavers (or beaver-related structures) specifically. Their past experiences 

with restoration projects were largely described as positive, both in terms of project 

outcomes and in terms of their interactions with state and federal agencies. Aside 

from challenges related to maintaining irrigation infrastructure, the landowners and 

ranchers we interviewed largely described beavers themselves as a neutral or even 

beneficial presence on the landscape, and some individuals said they were highly 

motivated to introduce beavers or beaver-related structures onto their ranches. 

However, some interviewees expressed concern regarding the potential liability that 

could arise from creating habitat for sensitive species should they become listed as 

threatened or endangered; and they identified challenges related to the permitting 

component of instream work on perennial streams. They also described riparian 

vegetation as insufficient in many areas to support beaver populations, even as 

beaver were readily recolonizing other parts of the landscape on their own. Relatedly, there was some difference in the perspectives expressed by ranchers and some 

agency interviewees regarding the necessity of changes to grazing management 

to support riparian restoration. Where ranchers generally felt that cattle exclusion 

from riparian and wetland areas resulted in habitat degradation, at least some of the 

agency representatives interviewed said that the promises of watershed restoration 
19

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

in these rangeland ecosystems would not be met without substantial changes to 

grazing management.

There may be specific opportunities to test the viability of artificial beaverrelated structures through the NRCS’ recent decision to fund post line-wicker 

weave and Zeedyk structures through farm support programs. The challenge with 

the use of these structures, as with any restoration project on productive landscapes, 

will be to meet wildlife habitat and conservation objectives while simultaneously 

providing benefits to private landowners, ranchers, and farmers in the county. 

Another challenge is to develop feasible approaches to conducting beaver-related 

restoration on federal lands, which currently many interviewees said is a difficult 

regulatory environment in which to work. The presence of multiple federal, state, 

and nongovernmental entities with interests in Owyhee County watershed restoration, combined with the goodwill created by past projects and interactions, suggests 

opportunities for continued collaborative learning regarding the practices and 

outcomes of beaver-related restoration.

From the expressed perspective of landowners and ranchers, the most important 

concerns were ensuring that the dams and instream structures were in the right 

place and ensuring that producers and landowners would not lose land management 

and income options because of the presence of beavers or species that benefit from 

wetlands. The other partners we interviewed generally expressed agreement on the 

need to align watershed restoration objectives with landowner and rancher interests, 

though some said that substantial changes to grazing operations would often be 

necessary to realize restoration benefits over the long term. Several prior habitat 

improvement projects, including pond installation for spotted frog habitat and 

juniper removal for sage grouse benefit, have demonstrated tangible benefits and 

have built trust and goodwill between landowners and state and federal agencies. In 

addition, the presence of multiple initiatives in Owyhee County and on rangelands 

generally point to substantial opportunities for technical advice, cooperative funding, and partnership building for future projects.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Northwest

Climate Hub and supported by the U.S. Department of the Interior Northwest

Climate Science Center. We give many thanks to those who generously contributed 

their time to participate in interviews on this topic. We thank Kristin Lohr, Brandon 

Miller, and Scott Jensen for their reviews; thanks also to Eva Kahn for her contributions to this report.
20

RESEARCH PAPER PNW-RP-611

Literature Cited

Abrams, J.; Davis, E.J.; Wollstein, K. 2017. Rangeland fire protection 

associations in Great Basin rangelands: a model for adaptive community 

relationships with wildfire? Human Ecology. 45(6): 773–785. doi.org/10.1007/

s10745-017-9945-y.

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

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

simulated beaver dams to a threatened population of steelhead (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss). Scientific Reports. 6: 28581.

Crea, S.; Smith, D.; Hribik, D.; Nadeau, S. 2017. FY2016 statewide report: 

furbearer. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 35 p.

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

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

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

Research Station. 12 p. 

Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts and Idaho Soil Conservation 

Commission [IASCD/ISCC]. 2004. Upper Owyhee Watershed TMDL 

implementation plan for agriculture. Boise, ID. 40 p.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game [IDFG]. 2016. Idaho State Wildlife Action 

Plan, 2015. Boise, ID. 1548 p.

Idaho State Historical Society. 1973. Idaho fur trade. Idaho State Historical 

Society Reference Series 444. Boise, ID. 4 p.

Lewin, P.A.; Rimbey, N.R.; Brown, A.; Jensen, K.S.; Wulfhorst, J.D. 2014.

Regional economic impact model of Owyhee County. Agricultural Economics 

Extension Series 14-01. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 17 p.

Lingo, H.A. 2013. Beaver reintroduction correlates with spotted frog population 

restoration and terrestrial movement patterns of newly metamorphosed Columbia 

spotted frogs in the Owyhee Uplands of southwestern Idaho. Boise, ID: Boise 

State University. 130 p. M.S. thesis. 

Owyhee County. 2015. Owyhee County Comprehensive Plan. Murphy, ID. 
21

Beaver-Related Restoration in Owyhee County, Idaho: Opportunities and Challenges

Pilliod, D.S.; Rohde, A.T.; Charnley, S.; Davee, R.R.; Dunham, J.; Gosnell, 

H.; Grant, G.; Hausner, M.B.; Huntington, J.; Nash, C. 2018. Survey of 

beaver-related restoration practices in rangeland streams of the Western U.S.A. 

Environmental Management. 61: 58–68. doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0957-6.

Pilliod, D.S.; Scherer, R.D. 2015. Managing habitat to slow or reverse population 

declines of the Columbia spotted frog in the Northern Great Basin. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 79(4): 579–590.

Shock, C.B.; Shock, M.P.; Shock, B.M.; Shock, C.C. 2011. Upper Owyhee 

Watershed assessment. Prepared for the Owyhee Watershed Council by 

Scientific Ecological Services. http://www.shockfamily.net/UpperOwyhee/

upperowyheeindex.html. (10 January 2017).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. 2017.

Strategic habitat conservation in Idaho: a priority conservation strategy 2017. 

Boise, ID.
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