Yesterday I met with city engineer Tim Tucker to discuss the plan for sediment removal from the bank near the secondary dam. There is good news and bad news. The good news is that the work will not touch the dam or the creek area, and the city seems willing to hear input from beaver interests. The bad news is that it is slated for the entire bank from the Marina Vista bridge past the foot bridge and down as far as the train bridge. The area which is measured at 100 feet wide will be protected with a short silt fence and then scraped to remove all vegetation and soil. This means the beavers primary source of foraging will be destroyed, and although it will ultimately be replanted, the habitat won’t be returned to its current state for a year or more.
The plan proposes leaving a two foot strip around the area, and a few trees up by the parking lot. Last night I discussed this at the City Council meeting and said this would be hugely impactful for our beavers, at the very time that they have four new mouths to feed. I pointed out that the city was removing 98% of their habitat and proposing to leave them 2%. Julian Frazer spoke with the good suggesting of removing the area in patches “like hair loss treatment” so that the habitat could recover more easily.
There was some willingness on the part of Ross, Delaney & Tucker to consider allowing more habitat to be saved, say ten percent rather than 2. However, Schroder and Kennedy both expressed concern that human interests would be deterred by beaver interests. (Menesini wasn’t there). It was left that the city planner was going to speak with the project planner to see whether the effort could be made to preserve more habitat without reducing the flood benefit, which is the goal.
It was hopeful that beaver interests were discussed, but concerning that a seeming undercurrent is still to minimize the attractiveness of our creek and hopefully send the beavers packing. This morning I woke up thinking about the “silt fence” the plan proposes, and realizing that the beavers will be HIGHLY motivated to get through that fence and access the feeding areas. Usually these fences are important for meeting regulations about disturbed materials getting back into the waterway. If it’s simple wooden stakes and plastic (as it often is in construction) they will chew right through with little effort, and the contractor will have to repair that fence every morning. If its something more substantial, the beavers may still tunnel under and this could undermine worker efforts to keep the sediment away from the water.
As it stands I can see no way that a two foot berm will be sufficient habitat for eight hungry beavers. Obviously some minor changes to the project can leave them their feeding range and still improve the flood plain. Plain and simple.
