The Reintroduction of the Beaver into the South

Southeastern Geographer Vol. XXXI, No. 1, May 1991, pp. 39-43 THE CHANGING SOUTH THE REINTRODUCTION OF THE BEAVER INTO THE SOUTH David R. Rutler INTRODUCTION. Populations of many native animal species in North America have been threatened or completely eliminated within the past century. Historically, the native beaver (Castor canadensis) was widely distributed across the southeastern United States, and names such as Beaver Creek, Little Beaver Dam Creek, and Great Beaver Dam Creek can be found on Georgia maps that date back to the late 1700s. As a result of fur trapping and agricultural practices, however, it was virtually eliminated from the region by the early 20th century. A 1927 government report identified the only areas in the South with significant beaver populations as the Mississippi River lowlands of western Mississippi , the Piedmont and Inner Coastal Plain of Alabama, and isolated pockets in westernmost North Carolina and Virginia, easternmost Tennessee , and the northern fringe of West Virginia. (J) During the 20th century, successful reintroductions of many animal species into their former ranges have occurred, and, in the South, these have included native turkeys and white-tailed deer. From the late 1930s into the early 1950s, many state wildlife and conservation agencies throughout the contiguous United States, including the South, successfully reintroduced the beaver to help control erosion and to expand wildlife and fishery habitats. The post-World War II conversion of many areas in the South from cropland to forest also aided the beaver's reestablishment by significantly expanding its potential habitat. (2) Because of the beaver's largely nocturnal habits, however, the general public remains largely unaware of its recent reoccupation of the South and the resultant effect on the region. This paper describes the current distribution of the beaver in the South, examines the positive and negative impacts of its reintroduction, and discusses its future. CURRENT DISTRIRUTION IN THE SOUTH. Today, beaver are present Dr. Butler is Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA 30602. 40 Southeastern Geographer in almost every part of the South except peninsular Florida, and even urban areas have beaver populations (Fig. 1). The Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill Triangle region, for example, has several beaver dams and ponds within its city limits. Beaver are concentrated primarily in the Piedmont and Inner Coastal Plain but also are found in smaller numbers in the Outer Coastal Plain and in the Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau provinces. (3) The reasons for this distribution are that streambeds in the Outer Coastal Plain consist primarily of loose BEAVER DENSITY 2-5 /100 SQ KM 1/100 SQ KM < 1/100 SQ KM Fig. 1. Contemporary distribution of the beaver in the southeastern United States aggregated by county except in South Carolina and Florida where county-wide data were generalized on the source map to conform to drainage basins. Source: Novak, footnote 1. Vol. XXXI, No. 1 41 sands that offer little cohesion for dams and burrows (such as in central South Carolina) and the swiftly flowing streams in the mountains frequently make successful dam establishment and maintenance difficult. (4) Disruption of stream habitats by coal mining in the Appalachian Plateau may be another factor. IMPACTS OF BEAVER REESTABLISHMENT IN THE SOUTH. Beaver reestablishment in the South has had both positive and negative results. In broad terms, these may be subdivided into geomorphic and economic impacts. Geomorphic Impacts. The reintroduction of the beaver into the South was due at least in part to its ability to reduce stream erosion and sediment transfer by damming streams, creating pond environments, and thus elevating the water table. By decreasing peak discharge during runoff events, beaver dams also lessen the possibility of flooding. Beaver ponds furthermore expand the area of riparian habitat and flooded soils, causing the deposition of sediment and organic matter behind the dam and releasing significantly cleaner water downstream. As beaver ponds slowly fill with sediment and organic matter, however, they are converted eventually into fertile new meadows and bottomlands . One negative effect of the return of beaver is the occasional outburst flood when a beaver dam fails. This normally takes place during a period of brief but intense rain exceeding 3 in, and several such floods have occurred in the South in the past two decades. Positive Economic Impacts. Beaver dams and associated pond environments produce significant aesthetic, environmental, and economic benefits beyond those associated with the protection of water quality and reduction of erosion. They increase wetland areas and thus offset the loss of waterfowl and fishery habitat due to urban expansion. Beaver ponds greatly increase the diversity of fish species and the number of fish and waterfowl, in turn increasing the quality of sport fishing and waterfowl hunting. Negative Economic Impacts. Negative effects of the reestablishment of the beaver in the South include damage to timber and damage due to inundation. Beavers damage timber by feeding on or felling trees to build dams. A recent review of vertebrate animal damage to southern 42Southeastern Geographer forests, for instance, revealed that beaver accounted for 91% of over $11 million in annual losses. (5) Comparable figures on the amount of damage from state to state, however, are difficult to obtain because damage may be reported in dollar values, percent increase, or geographic area affected. The dollar value of beaver damage to nonimpounded timber is controversial and difficult to quantify. A recent study from Mississippi stated that nearly $215 million worth of damage to nonimpounded timber occurred in that state over a period of "at least 10 years." Advocates for the local timber industry, seeking to justify beaver removal, noted that the total, indirect loss was even greater, approaching $2.5 billion for finished products from timber. Whether one agrees with this extrapolation or not, it is clear that direct beaver-related losses are considerable . Damage to timber from beaver ponds affects broad geographic areas in the South. For example, between 1967 and 1975, beaver impoundments inundated more than 287,000 acres in Georgia. The impoundment area in Mississippi increased more than 300% during the 10-year period ending in 1978, and the distribution of the beaver population in South Carolina since 1966 has spread from 12 to 28 counties, with a minimum of 17,000 acres inundated. Damage to structures and transportation facilities from beaver impoundments has also increased greatly in recent years. For example, the Burlington Northern Railroad from Amory, Mississippi, to Pensacola, Florida, was so threatened by beaver impoundments that it necessitated more than 40 control trappings and removals between December 1979 and May 1983. A beaver impoundment and associated den excavation in Treutlen County, Georgia, caused a 120-foot section of railroad to collapse , resulting in damage approximating $100,000. (6). CONTROLLING BEAVER POPULATIONS. Beaver have proved remarkably adept at reoccupying their former range in the southern states, and current beaver populations have reached "nuisance" levels in several places. Low pelt prices during recent years have resulted in insufficient trapping pressure to check population growth, and the formerly valuable pelt now is barely worth the effort. Pelts were valued at $10-25 after World War II, but have fallen below $10 since 1980. (7) Eating beaver meat could also be considered a potential control on population as the meat is purportedly tasty and can be prepared in a variety Vol. XXXI, No. 1 43 of ways. It is unlikely, however, to be a sufficiently desirable food to have even a small impact on the beaver population. OUTLOOK. As destruction of forests and paving of the landscape associated with urban expansion continue in metropolitan areas such as Atlanta , Charlotte, and other smaller cities in the region, beaver habitat will be destroyed. Nevertheless, the beaver's remarkable adaptability in the Raleigh-Durham area suggests that its population levels will not decline substantially in the region. Beaver-dam outburst floods will continue to pose hazards during very heavy rain events, especially on the Piedmont in areas of granitic bedrock. Removal of nuisance beavers by trapping will be necessary for the foreseeable future, and this should be adequate to keep beaver populations at manageable levels. While some state agencies and private landowners who perceive the beaver to be a nuisance will gladly bear the cost of its removal, other landowners will appreciate the aesthetic and environmental benefits it provides. Regardless of its negative and positive impacts, the newly reintroduced beaver will continue to be an integral part of the southern landscape for decades to come. (1)V. Bailey, Beaver Habits and Experiments in Beaver Culture, U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 21 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1927); M. Novak, "Beaver," in Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America (Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1987), pp. 284-312. (2)M. K. Johnson and D. R. Aldred, "Controlling Beaver in the Gulf Coastal Plain," Proceedings ofthe Annual Conference ofthe Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1984), pp. 189-196. (3)Novak, footnote 1; Johnson and Aldred, footnote 2. (4)D. R. Butler, "The Failure of Beaver Dams and Resulting Outburst Flooding: A Geomorphic Hazard of the Southeastern Piedmont," The Geographical Bulletin, Vol. 31 (1989), pp. 29-38. (5)J. E. Miller, "Assessment of Wildlife Damage on Southern Forests," in Managing Southern Forests for Wildlife and Fish: A Proceedings, U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SO-65 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1987), pp. 48-53; J. F. Bullock and D. H. Amer, "Beaver Damage to Nonimpounded Timber in Mississippi," Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 9 (1985), pp. 137-140. (6)K. Forbus and F. Allen, Southern Beaver Control, Georgia Forest Research Paper 23 (Atlanta: Georgia Forestry Commission, 1981). (7)Novak, footnote 1; Johnson and Aldred, footnote 2. ...