Fuzzy Logic and Keystone Species

admin Beavers October 19, 2009

And so I continue. Monday’s final subcommittee meeting also heard arguments against the classification of our beavers as a keystone species. Never mind the scads of information defining them as such; I suppose it would be a far different thing to those with other agendas should Alhambra Creek be deemed a wildlife corridor versus just a happy coincidence for one beaver colony.I am no more a biologist than an economist but I can observe the transformation of what once was a garbage strewn mud hole to a creek that now hosts and sustains wildlife. Just this morning a cormorant was filmed fishing a carp from the creek. Fuzzy logic says that cormorant wouldn’t have been down that far in the creek but for the beavers converting it to a life sustaining pond.

It was also argued that the appearance of kingfishers and egrets or for that matter every duck and goose that has paddled their way up past Starbucks are also coincidental. Obviously kingfishers aren’t named thus for esoteric reasons and I doubt a duckling could have found enough water to paddle in two years ago.

But for beavers and their subsequent pond, muskrats, waterfowl, otters, turtles and the ever elusive tourist would be suspiciously absent from downtown Martinez. If I’m not mistaken that pretty much defines a keystone species.

Called to Stewardship…

heidi08 Beavers March 30, 2008

The beavers can take care of the watershed, the birds, the amphibians, the fish, and the otters…

They just need you to take care of them.

You think it’s too expensive to keep the beavers? Think about the costs of getting rid of them…

heidi08 Educational, featured April 3, 2008

In late 1999 Riverside County became concerned that a beaver colony was taking trees at their Lake Skinner Reservoir, which was part of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Department of Fish and Game was consulted and issued a depredation permit. They reported that this was necessary because destruction of habitat would negatively impact two songbirds on the Endangered Species List that were known to breed in the area. (The Bell’s Vireo & Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.)

A group of concerned locals (Friends of Lake Skinner) objected and sued the Department of Fish and Game, Riverside County Conservation Agency and the Metropolitan Water District, demanding that an Environmental Impact Report be obtained before the beavers were removed. They argued that under the regulations of the California Environmental Qualities Act an EIR was necessary. They lost this original suit and the matter was subsequently taken to appeal.

In December of 2000 the Fourth Appellate District overturned the original decision and ruled for the plaintiffs, stating that the decision to remove the beavers from the area was “discretionary” rather than “ministerial” and that because of this, there was a indeed a need for an Environmental Impact Report to meet the standards of CEQA. The matter was found for the plaintiffs and their entire costs were ordered to be paid by the defendants.

This lengthy proceeding lasted more than two years, involving three agencies and expensive expert testimony on both sides. This, ultimately, cost the defendants a great deal of money and public goodwill. A journal article was later developed regarding this action and was recently published in the Journal of Environmental Management 2007[i]. A copy of the remittitur regarding the Appellate Decision can be read on the Riverside Open Access website. It is worth noting that the attorney who represented Friends of Lake Skinner has already written our mayor and been in regular contact with Worth a Dam.

First rule of politics: Choose your battles.

Heidi P. Perryman, Ph.D.

[i] Langcore, T. , Rich, C. & Müller-Schwarze, D. (2006) Management by Assertion: Beavers and Songbirds t Lake Skinner (Riverside County, California) Environmental Management Vol 39 (4).

Beaver Economics 101

admin Beavers March 26, 2008

I am breaking away from my norm of personal essays and while I expect those whose eyes normally glaze over when they balance their checkbooks (like mine do) to react to the title in similar fashion all I ask is a little forbearance. I promise this won’t be a printed equivalent to a dentist visit.

Monday night, March 25^th saw the sunsetting of the Alhambra Creek Beavers Subcommittee whose collective efforts resulted in the compilation of a 57 page report now available in its entirety on-line at www.martinezbeavers.com. On Tuesday March 26^th I received a phone call from a KPIX reporter who was in town to get up to date information on the beavers. That news segment is also available on-line.

My purpose for this post is to draw particular attention to one specific concern raised both in the report and again during the newscast. Numbers are out specifying what it has cost the City of Martinez to maintain our beaver colony in its current habitat. While it could be speculated that these figures appear somewhat inflated, I’m asking that we assume for the moment that they are not.

What the figure of $70,000+/- represents is termed a “sunk cost” or a cost that has been incurred which cannot be recovered to any significant degree. The argument made both in session and again in an interview provided to KPIX is that the cost to the City of Martinez doesn’t warrant a decision to maintain the beavers in their current habitat, yet microeconomics would point to variable costs being the true determinate factor for decision making.

Yes I feel eyes glazing so let me simplify – back in November the citizens of Martinez stood up and demanded the City Council study options that would allow the beavers to remain in their current habitat. Prudence dictated immediate steps be taken to ensure downtown merchants were protected from the possibility of flooding in the interim. The monies spent to date to accomplish both the will of the people and the protection of life and property are sunk costs.

Variable costs are sprinkled throughout the remainder of the report and reflect items such as bank stabilization, flood plain widening, creek walks, etc. These are real and probable costs and should be considered, yet what is and continues to be overlooked is the fact that a non-profit now exists to provide a conduit for necessary funding. The argument that the City of Martinez, ala its citizens, will continue to absorb these costs is misleading and to draw from yet another economic term is geared to create a sense of loss aversion.

What having a non-profit means is the ability to apply for and receive private and public funds, not unlike the New York example where a lone male beaver made the Bronx river his home. That one beaver netted the city $15,000,000 dollars in federal funding. I don’t profess to be much of an economist but to these lay persons eyes that would be one hell of an ROI (return on investment for my numbered addled friends.)

Strategic Misunderstandings

heidi08 Beavers, In the News, pictures March 24, 2008

This weekend I was at the dam taking sunset pictures when a group of people came out from dinner at Bertola’s, explaining to each other, “Yes this is where the beavers were. They moved them.” I, of course, clarified that the beavers were still there, the council still hadn’t voted on whether or not to keep them, and in fact the mother was pregnant. A woman shook her head, “I’m sure I heard on the news that they were moved to an Indian Reservation”. I explained that this was one proposal which had not been decided yet, that I was on the subcommittee advising the council, and that the beavers were still seen every day doing beaver-y things and working on the dam. They were very surprised but seemed happy to hear it.

Add this misperception to the very fastidious and anonymous wikipedia editor who was persistently altering the Martinez page to say that the beavers were going to be relocated, and changed content each time I posted to the contrary. This user repeatedly deleted my references for the fact that the decision has not been made, that a subcommittee was appointed and given 90 days to examine the issue, and that the report will be released soon. After nearly 30 re-edits in 5 days, Anonymous apparently gave up and allowed the real story to persist — for now (I haven’t checked yet this morning…)

The other widely circulated (though slightly more benign myth) is that the beaver decision was settled at the November 7th meeting. The city council respected the voice of the people and allowed the beavers to stay. That civic chapter is finished with a happy ending. Nothing to see here, move along. I have even heard this from reporters who truly were under the impression that the issue was resolved. Why send a crew out there when the story is over?

I hardly have the spare time to be a conspiracy theorist, but its worth noting that, without exception, every single misunderstanding about these beavers appears to benefit the members of the council who want them gone. Think about it, if people believe they have already been relocated, there can hardly be much outcry when the city casts their 3-2 vote for this to happen. In fact, if the press can be discouraged from any interest in the already-completed story, there will be less awkward public opinion to deal with in April, and fewer news cameras.

The only way to challenge a myth is to chip away at it with facts. The beavers are still in residence. They are seen every day. The decision is still in residence too. The council is charged with using the best information available to make a decision that will benefit the entire town. The beaver subcommittee holds its last meeting tonight at 5:30 at city hall. In the mean time, the struggle (which has turned out to be far more epic than we expected) goes on. Tell your friends and co-workers that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, “Rumors of their death have been greatly exaggerated”.

Our beavers’ fate lies in your hands.