Search for: All records

This Forum brings together river restoration researchers and practitioners to stimulate debate about the recent explosion of interest in North American beaver (Castor canadensis) and beaver-related practices in North American river restoration science and management. While the beaver is described in recent literature as a low-cost, high-impact ecosystem engineer capable of minimizing the impacts of wildfire, drought, flood, and disturbance across the continent, we consider the importance of shifting from a focus on prescriptive results—on what beaver get humans—and towards engaging with beaver in relational process. Through a set of provocations that highlight the potential damage beaver fixes pose for stream restoration, for beaver, and for the lands and waters they inhabit with humans and other beings, we invite settler river scientists, river restorationists, and river thinkers to question the increasingly taken-for-granted logic of beaver as isolated creature, ecosystem engineer, and river savior; defer to the millennia of theory about beaver and their relations on this continent, partnering with beaver and with the Native peoples who have known them longest; and reconnect beaver back to people, place, and time in support of lively, dynamic, diverse, flourishing river systems across the continent. 

Wisconsin’s Driftless Area, an unglaciated region defined by steep river valley systems, has been plagued by chronic flooding in part due to Euro-American agricultural practices and anthropogenic climate change. The region, which has played a central role in environmental knowledge production, has a storied history of resilience practices and flood experience. To capture histories of Driftless Area flood experience and underlying socio-ecological dynamics, we performed a qualitative analysis of regional news archives from 1866 to present on flood trends, experiences, and responses. Our analysis identified hazard response trends mediated by socio-ecological factors including crisis-induced windows of opportunity for change, conflicts over structural and non-structural responses to flooding, and psychological dimensions of environmental crises. Finally, our analysis noted the key role of community flood knowledge in producing shifts towards enhanced resilience, suggesting the need for empowering flood response planning at the community scale. 

Stream restoration has become an increasingly important focus in southwestern Wisconsin's Driftless Area, an unglaciated, hilly pocket of the Upper Mississippi River Basin rich in groundwater-driven coldwater streams, recreationally important trout species, and agricultural communities. Climate change is driving a major increase in precipitation and flooding across this rural and often under-resourced region, effects complicated by the ongoing legacies of white settlement and the changes it wrought to area streams, including the burial of floodplains in sediment displaced off area hillslopes. As managers work to consider how to “restore” Driftless streams, riparian vegetation—grass versus trees—has become a central and surprisingly controversial node. Current stream restoration practice typically includes the removal of riparian trees, though that practice has come under increasing criticism. Grounded in more than 5 years of qualitative and biophysical fieldwork in the region, we build from interviews gathered with 18 Driftless Area stream restoration managers from 2018 to 2020 to point to the ways that managers leverage arguments about erosion, flooding, habitat, and angler access, among other things, in service of grass and trees. Indexing the surface flows and underflows of this restoration debate, we introduce the rhetorical concept of the proxy debate to argue that debates about grass versus trees are tethered to competing perspectives on scale, temporality, and dynamism, surficial distractions from much deeper anxieties about what a stream is and should be. We turn to the ways that these distractions serve to further distance the stream restoration enterprise from acknowledging the ongoing human and hydrologic legacies of settler colonialism, and we close by suggesting that careful attention to rhetorical power—both to what arguments say and do, and to what they elide—offers a tentative first step toward restoring lands and relations by questioning what is taken for granted and what lies beneath.