Because the beaver isn't just an animal; it's an ecosystem!

Category: Uncategorized


So Igor and I piled in his jaunty hybrid and drove out to Antioch last night to talk watershed. The scout involved with the tree-planting came too so he could listen to our overview and catch up to date. Igor spoke first about the way watersheds work and it was a great opportunity to think about our creek and how we have treated it.

One of his main points is that creeks need room to live a normal creek life. They need to meander, to move their banks, deposit sediment, and build up resources. When healthy creeks encounter high flows the water is absorbed by the floodplain and things return quickly back to normal.

Very early on we decided creeks were property lines, and we didn’t want them changing on us. Imagine if we used clouds for property lines? We confined creeks with sheetpile and cement to keep our feet and acres. However, creeks that can’t “meander” simply cut deeper into the earth, so we end up with faster, harsher high flows that are threatening to property. One thing he said last night that I had never heard was that confined channels, whether its concrete or sheetpile, have a life expectancy of about 60 years. It’s not like you build them once and all your problems are solved. In fact many of our impermeable surface creeks in California have reached the end of their life span, and require significant maintenance.

I found this description from Toby Hemenway a while back and was fascinated by the implications of how we changed our waterways when we decimated the beaver population. Add to this that a downcut stream has a lower water table, so tree roots can’t reach it and the vegetation along the bank dies off.

You know what a stream looks like. It has a pair of steep banks that have been scoured by shifting currents, exposing streaks and lenses of rock and old sediment. At the bottom of this gully—ten to fifty feet down—the water rushes past, and you can hear the click of tumbling rocks as they are jostled downstream. The swift waters etch soil from first one bank, then the other as the stream twists restlessly in its bed. In flood season, the water runs fast and brown with a burden of soil carried ceaselessly from headwaters to the sea. At flood, instead of the soft click of rocks, you can hear the crack and thump of great boulders being hauled oceanward. In the dryness of late summer, however, a stream is an algae-choked trickle, skirted by a few tepid puddles among the exposed cobbles and sand of its bed. These are the sights and sounds of a contemporary stream.

You don’t know what a stream looks like. A natural North American stream is not a single, deeply eroded gully, but a series of broad pools, as many as fifteen per mile, stitched together by short stretches of shallow, braided channels. The banks drop no more than a foot or two to water, and often there are no true banks, only a soft gradation from lush meadow to marsh to slow open water. If soil washes down from the steep headwaters in flood season, it is stopped and gathered in the chain of ponds, where it spreads a fertile layer over the earth. In spring the marshes edging the ponds enlarge to hold floodwaters. In late summer they shrink slightly, leaving at their margins a meadow that offers tender browse to wildlife. An untouched river valley usually holds more water than land, spanned by a series of large ponds that step downhill in a shimmering chain. The ponds are ringed by broad expanses of wetland and meadow that swarm with wildlife.

The entire article is a great look at the way our beaver-huntin’-habit changed the face of America in ways we never considered. It also reminded me of the fact that our beavers now have increasingly harder jobs of keeping up creeks formed by years of downcutting.

Good thing they aren’t slackers.


Beaver friend and former city council contender Tim Platt had this letter in the Martinez News Gazette last week. I thought it was worth reprinting here with his permission:

February 11, 2009

Dear Editor,

 

The Gazette’s recent State of the City article highlighted fiscal achievements that have contributed to the relative soundness of our current financial situation.  However, one of our most significant achievements was not mentioned—avoiding the potentially dire financial consequences that could have come from establishing a Martinez Redevelopment Agency.

 

The ability of a Redevelopment Agency to repay its bonds and loans is based directly on increasing property values.  The increase in property tax income in the Redevelopment Agency area is the primary source of income to the Redevelopment Agency.  Yet prices for housing, commercial buildings and land plummeted over the last two years and are predicted to continue to do so into the foreseeable future.  That significantly reduces the amount of property tax income going to Redevelopment Agencies.  Their ability to pay off the bonds they have issued becomes more difficult.  The same is true of the loans many Redevelopment Agencies have taken from their host city governments.

 

In addition, the State has belatedly realized that the property tax moneys diverted by Redevelopment Agencies would be better spent on the local agencies and districts they were diverted from (schools and community colleges,  East Bay Regional Parks, BART, fire departments, cities with Redevelopment Agencies in them, county government, public hospitals, etc.).  Our State government recently enacted legislation taking $350 million of those diverted dollars back from the Redevelopment Agencies to support local schools (and more may be taken back in the future).

 

Added together, the financial pressure on Redevelopment Agencies to be able to repay their bonds and loans is increasing.  We are lucky to have dodged that bullet in Martinez .

 

I applaud the sound thinking of our Council, the City and numerous local citizens who kept us out of this potential morass.

 

Working together I believe we can continue to make wise decisions to solve our City’s problems without jeopardizing our future.

 

Sincerely,

Tim Platt


Thanks Tim. If our beaver fans would like to know more about why this particular bullet is worth dodging, here are some places to start looking…

 

Redevelopment: the unknown government

Redevelopment Abuses

California Alliance to Protect Property Rights

 


Scratch any inconvenient wildlife story and you always find the larger selfishness of a few madcap developers, and a city council with comic book dollar signs on their eyes. Turns out the Acorn Woodpeckers of Rossmoor are no exception. February’s issue of Quail (MDAS Audubon Newsletter) is chock full of updates, but this story by Nancy Wenniger, about the history of Rossmoor, really steals the show.

This conflict is the inevitable result of a series of bad decisions. In 1976 the City of Walnut Creek approved an Environmental Impact Report for a conceptual plan for the completion of the Rossmoor community. The EIR listed a number of “unavoidable” adverse impacts to the environment which would occur if 3,500 additional units were allowed to be built by the developer as proposed. Of special interest is the following ecological impact: “Loss of approximately 300 acres of natural vegetation and wildlife habitat, including approximately 135 acres of oak woodland and riparian woodland, which are the most biologically productive of Tice Valley¹s plant communities. This will substantially reduce the plant and animal habitat value of the Tice Valley.” Despite this very significant environmental impact, the build-out was approved.

Did you get that? Buildout approved despite huge environmental impact.

In 1989 UDC Homes submitted its plan for 330 new condominiums in what would be the next-to-last development in Rossmoor. The plan called for massive grading and the removal of 3,100 trees, mostly blue oak and buckeyes.

3100 trees. Wow that’s alot of new space for condos. What could possibly go wrong?

Rossmoor residents, MDAS, the Sierra Club, the California Native Plant Society and Friends of Tice Creek all united in their opposition to the destruction of nearly 36 acres of woodland. They requested that the City require a new or amended EIR to address these very significant impacts which had not previously been adequately considered. City staff and the Planning Commission agreed that the environmental impacts were significant and could not be avoided without a substantial reduction in the size of the project. The Planning Commission also determined that the destruction of trees and habitat was inconsistent with city policies, and they denied UDC¹s permit. However, UDC appealed to Walnut Creek’s City Council.

Developers and concerned residents argue before City Council. Hmm, that sounds familiar. I think I know this story. Don’t tell me how it ends, I can guess.

On May 29, 1990, more than 200 Rossmoor residents and environmentalists attended a marathon meeting. According to an account in the Contra Costa Times, ”Senior citizens booed and hissed for a good portion of the seven-hour hearing, and the City Clerk at one point called police officers to guard against any possible senior citizen disturbances.”

Senior Citizen disturbances? You’ve got to be kidding me. Was someone hit with a cane? The clerk called police officers. Ohhh you mean like the dozen police officers “necessary” to be on hand for our November 7th, 2007 meeting about the fate of the Martinez beavers? Yes, as I recall, the Contra Costa Times reached for its fainting couch in reporting that meeting too. Apparently they aren’t used to cities uttering much more than “Wow that’s the best idea, evah!” and “Please tax me more and tear down my grandpa’s house to build a Staples”.

Rossmoor officials argued persuasively that further delay or denial would have an adverse impact on the Golden Rain Foundation¹s capital funding and harm all Rossmoor residents. UDC had threatened to sue the city for as much as $300 million if the project was denied. So, despite impassioned pleas on behalf of the trees, before adjournment at 3 am the council voted 4­1 in favor of allowing the development to go forward and determined that the environmental impacts had been addressed in the 1976 report. One speaker spoke prophetically when he told the council a decision for the developer would haunt them “for years and years to come.”

That’s some mighty illuminating back story. Puts all those pesky woodpeckers in perspective. The Sierra Club sued and lost, (like us) and the project rolled blindly forward like a tank through a china shop.

The condominiums were built, nestled into the remnants of the oak woodlands. Three-story vertical facades and the poor choice of a foam construction material created an attractive substitute for the granary trees which had been removed. The woodpeckers have responded in an entirely predictable way to the stressors in their environment.

“And that’s why Grandpa needs a shot gun, Timmy.”

Some bedtime story.

Check out the whole newsletter, which is a rollicking good read, especially the part where it tries to mention us and calls us Give A Dam (sheesh!). I wrote Diana and reminded her that despite our sentimentality about beavers, we here in Martinez are a deeply practical people:

We understand our city will never GIVE a dam!


The Rossmoor woodpecker firing squad is making it very easy to make photoshop fun of them today…I’m starting gently.  In the meantime, concerned residents are asking for calls to city council

From Woodpecker Friend Bev
Here is your opportunity to take a proactive stand to protect our birds here in Rossmoor:

Please telephone and ask to speak to as many of the Walnut Creek City Council representatives as you have time to talk to on Thursday, Jan. 29.  Before placing the call, have the list of City Council members so you can ask for each person by name.  Call 925 943 5812.  The person answering may likely require you to leave your name with them and to also provide your call back number to reach you.  Be sure to ask for the name of the person with whom you are leaving your request  so that person knows you are keeping track of the call. Also impress upon them that you are trying to speak to the City Council person about a time sensitive issue and are hoping to speak to the council person the same day.

 

When the Council person calls, tell them that the Rossmoor administration has publicly gone on record that they are going to shoot the woodpeckers at any time now and that because of this, there isn’t time to wait for the next City Council meeting to address this issue.  You would like the City Council official to instruct the City Attorney and Police Chief to tell Rossmoor’s homeowners association and the Golden Rain Board and Foundation that the City police will enforce the City of Walnut Creek gun ordinance and prosecute anyone who knowingly violates it.

The amazing thing is how familiar all this is in some ways. Massive media attention, huge offers of help, and hours of public effort challenged by the narrow minds of a few property owners who aren’t willing to believe there’s a better way. The sad thing is that even if one mutual agrees to suspend the shooting and work with audubon, the other won’t, so the shooting will still trigger the population increase that allows everyone to say “see we tried alternative ideas and it didn’t work!”
It’s so frustrating. Lets try something less subtle:


[youtube:http://youtube.com/watch?v=jtEqN2Vfhyw]

Our wise beaver-salmon friend William Hughes-Games in New Zealand worries that fish-ladder devices create the impression that beaver dams obstruct passage when in fact we used to have millions more beavers and millions more salmon and they got along just fine, thank you very much. He’s working with the reintroduction in Scotland to help them realize they should invest only in watchful good will, so they can document that the salmon manage the dams, and see the population changes as they happen.

This particular video shows a waterless earthen dam, unusual perhaps because its an unnatural creek. I think William would say that there are some dams that may be salmon obstacles, (and there are solutions to deal with those) but there are far fewer than we imagine, and they benefits to young salmonids far outweigh the risks.

Here are some of his ideas offered in correspondence with concerned salmon watchers in Scotland:

I take your point and have full sympathy with your concerns regarding the effect of beaver dams on the upward migration of adult salmon.  I also admit that the opinion held by people like myself that beavers greatly enhance salmon runs is based to a large extent on historical, sometimes anecdotal information and on logic.  Let me state as someone who has worked as a marine biologist most of my life that I am very aware that simple logic, such as a physicist would depend on, doesn’t always serve the purpose when it comes to biology.  Biological systems are complicated and as much as you apply logic, the only final criteria is observation of what actually occurs.  You then apply logic in hindsight and we all know that hindsight is an exact science. 

I think we have one common point of agreement if I read correctly between the lines of your last e-mail – namely that putting in devices to allow salmon to pass beaver dams is a non starter.  In my case, I would disagree with putting in such devices because I don’t think they are needed.  In your case (I would assume) you would not put them in because they are expensive and in that I quite agree with you.  the only place I can see using any devices with beaver dams would be to stop the flooding of some vital road or facility but never to help salmon ovee the dam.  For the most part, in most locations, that very flooding is what makes beavers so valuable in an ecosystem for a whole suit of reasons.  I would add that if such devices are put in place and the salmon do pass, then everyone will assume that these devices are needed for salmon to pass beaver dams.   That would put a totally unjustified cloud over the introduction of beavers.

There are a couple of places in the world, including Argyle where the effect of beaver dams on a variety of salmon species will be observed and documented.  Hopefully this will be done without any effort to help salmon artificially over the beaver dams.  It is a shame that in Argyle there is not a numerical base line already established for the extent of salmon runs although I am sure there is a body of anecdotal information available.   If it is shown over the long term that the beaver dams that are built in these catchments have the detrimental effects on salmon as you believe, I will be the first to reverse my opinion on the relationship between these two animals.  I’m sure the reverse is also true.  In a decade or so, when the results are in, I’m sure we will be in complete agreement one way or the other.

My contention is partially based on the following.  In pre-European North America, with beaver dams in every possible location where one could be built, the salmon runs of all the species that existed on both coasts were legendary.  First People fertilized their fields with salmon, would you believe.  The extirpation of the beavers from the Columbia catchment following 1818 caused a precipitous drop in the salmon runs at a time when none of the other factors were in place that we associate with the demise of the salmon.

I know we will both be watching the Argyle experiment and others of a similar ilk with great interest.  Let the results observed in the field determine our future course of action.

Best wishes in your quest to enhance salmon runs
We both have the same goal
We only disagree on the path to that goal

Regards
William

DONATE

TREE PROTECTION

BAY AREA PODCAST

Our story told around the county

Beaver Interactive: Click to view

LASSIE INVENTS BDA

URBAN BEAVERS

LASSIE AND BEAVERS

Ten Years

The Beaver Cheat Sheet

Restoration

RANGER RICK

Ranger rick

The meeting that started it all

Past Reports

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Story By Year

close

Share the beaver gospel!