City Council,
The Joint Power Authorities May 2025 Alternatives Evaluation Technical
Report states project goals that include "Enhance habitat within the
project area, particularly interconnected habitat for threatened and
endangered species". However, in ranking the feasibility of four
alternatives, protection and enhancement of nature is assigned to a
"Co-benefits" weighting of 10 percent, a category that is shared with a
vaguely worded "Holistic watershed approach" and "Recreational
Opportunities". Reading through the report, it is clear that no
discussion is given to _maintaining _a natural creek environment after
all stream bank vegetation has been removed for placement of sheet walls
or crib walls. Although the plan does propose planting crib walls with
willows and other native vegetation, the current condition of the creek
suggests that without ongoing maintenance, much of the vegetation will
consist of invasive plants such as broom and acacia.
Currently in Reach 2, the creek supports not only a struggling
population of endangered steelhead trout, but a thriving community of
wildlife that use the creek trees and bed as habitat. I have personally
observed over 90 species of birds, coyotes, deer, raccoons, opossum, and
skunks in and around the creek. Just last week, I startled a deer in the
creek bed near the Pope-Chaucer bridge; it scrambled up the bank. Flood
walls and vertical sheet walls will pose an insuperable barrier for
"interconnected habitat" for many of these animals. I hope that more
consideration will be given to nature as the final plans develop.
Please recommend that protection of nature be given its own rating
category, or a higher ranking factor consistent with the creeks
importance as habitat.
Naomi Goodman
Menlo Park
