[Tweeters] King County rarities (not)

[Steve Hampton]

Tom et al,

Well stated. I will add that the few times we got funds dedicated to
shorebird habitat, including mgmt, was thru specific mitigation processes
that required shorebirds to be addressed. This happened several times thru
oil spill settlements (the natural resource damage assessment and
restoration process), and also thru public construction projects that
required mitigation specifically for lost shorebird habitat.



On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 10:11 PM Tom Merritt <birders.2341 at comcast.net>
wrote:


> All:

>

>

>

> Not that I any real academic level biological knowledge or significant

> birding knowledge, but still having been involved in birding for many

> years, having lived in the Puget Sound Basin since 1959 and having been an

> electrical engineer involved in many public works projects, I have some

> understanding on how the restoration design process works.  Firstly, the

> primary emphasis is salmon habitat restoration.  The ACOE has developed

> certain guidelines - there may be numerical scores and of course the ones

> that favor salmon habitat restoration are highly favored.  Willows and

> other woody plants provide shade and cover for salmon and other fish

> species as well as for birds.   Such plants also prevent erosion.  Then the

> designers of these restoration projects are always operating under

> extremely limited budgets and do not have time to develop any real original

> design approaches for the site.  Almost always the funding for the

> restoration projects comes from other mega-projects and is very limited.

> To get the design and construction completed within the budget, the

> designers are basically forced to use what we perceive as a cookie cutter

> approach.  Developing a fully site-specific design that might depart from

> the ACOE design guidelines would require far too much coordination. The

> design criteria would typically require following ACOE design guidelines,

> even though they may not be the best approach for a particular site.  But

> following those guidelines is safe.  When the ACOE reviews the design, not

> following the guidelines would certainly be a red flag.  In my perception

> that was certainly the case at the Montlake fill site.  The funding for

> that was just a small sliver of the overall funding for the 520-project.

> The Fill restoration was just a small line item in the overall budget and

> probably got Just passing attention from the project management.  With all

> this focus, the overall design and construction budget for the Fill was

> very limited.  Despite the emphasis in the birding community towards more

> open muddy areas for shorebird habitat, that did not receive significant

> attention during the design process.    Additionally, there are numerous

> other competing community interests, including horticultural, and the

> perceptions of the public just walking through, who may or may not

> appreciate the significance of good shorebird habitat.  All these

> considerations plus the budgetary limitations certainly forced the Fill

> landscape architects towards the design that was implemented.  I mentioned

> the review process above.  Often the time allotted for a review is

> limited.  With ACOE, the review process may be more properly budgeted and

> developed, but the individuals doing the review have other responsibilities

> as well.  During my professional career, there were times when I was tasked

> with doing an electrical design review for a major project and had less

> than 8 hours to become familiar with the project and provide detailed

> comments.

>

>

>

> Anyway. that is my point-of-view from having been active in the birding

> community and having been on the other side as well.  And as Steve Hampton

> writes the agencies always have extremely limited operations and

> maintenance budgets.  As designers, that was always a major consideration,

> in that the design had to have low operation and maintenance costs.

>

>

>

> Tom Merritt

>

> Seattle

>

>

>

>

>

> *From:* Tweeters <tweeters-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu> *On Behalf

> Of *Steve Hampton

> *Sent:* Saturday, May 15, 2021 21:36

> *To:* Tweeters <tweeters at uw.edu>

> *Subject:* Re: [Tweeters] King County rarities (not)

>

>

>

> Dennis et al,

>

>

>

> I've seen this same battle fought -- and lost -- in the San Francisco Bay

> area, where agencies would rather let spartina take over than manage for

> shorebirds, which generally requires active mgmt of water levels, as much

> an art as a science, especially if you're juggling tides, water quality

> issues, mosquitos, etc. The SF Bay Bird Observatory (SFBBO) collected lots

> of data and fought hard for shorebirds but ultimately got minimal results.

>

>

>

> Years ago I wrote a paper on successful shorebird habitat creation at a

> managed wetland in Davis, CA. That paper is here and provides some evidence

> that it is possible:

> http://www.cvbirds.org/wp-content/themes/cvbirds/files/V.3no.4/V.3no.4pp54-59.pdf

>

>

>

> I'm sure SFBBO has more material.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 7:02 PM Scott Downes <downess at charter.net> wrote:

>

> Michael, Dennis, Alan and other interested Tweeters. Completely agree on

> this and some of the other habitat restoration. Often it gets way too

> “cookbook”, I.e. let’s plant them all the same instead of looking at

> habitat value and what habitat types are limited in the area.

> I believe the woody plant question comes from some of the cookbook wetland

> mitigation ratios developed. I think it would be an excellent engagement on

> this subject, probably starting with Dept of Ecology and Army Corp since

> they often are at the spear point of how wetland mitigation is directed.

>

> Scott Downes

> Downess at charter.net

> Yakima Wa

>

> > On May 15, 2021, at 6:40 PM, birdmarymoor at gmail.com wrote:

> >

> > Dennis - I've seen King County state the goal of reducing Reed

> Canary-Grass. This particular area in Redmond was a big, flat, Reed

> Canary-Grass meadow. They constructed the ponds and planted the willows

> which, they probably would say, are there to shade out the grass.  (There

> may also be some Rules imposed by the state, or Federally, prohibiting

> leaving exposed mud, for fear that it will lead to turbidity in stream

> water, but that shouldn't be applicable in areas that are as level as this

> meadow).

> >

> > I think planting willows to get rid of Reed Canary-Grass is misguided.

> They did this on 204th St. down in the Kent area, converting a weedy farm

> field that seasonally flooded (providing excellent shorebird habitat) into

> a dense willow grove of many acres.  The willows are drying this area and,

> if left alone, it will eventually become a Doug Fir forest in all

> likelihood.  It will never again be a wetland.

> >

> > It's like they never took a Wetlands Ecology course, in which they might

> have learned the sequence of wetland succession.  Willows coming in is the

> final stage, leading to soil drying and the deposition of additional soil.

> Only a major flood/scouring event will revert a willow thicket back to a

> nascent wetland (or beavers will do it, but they need an active stream to

> dam).

> >

> > I have long felt that educating the state and county about this should

> be the #1 priority of Seattle Audubon conservation efforts.  Meadows should

> not be converted to forest, and wetland conservation should not destroy

> Class 3 wetlands by converting them to forests.

> >

> > = Michael

> >

> > -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Paulson

> > Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 6:03 PM

> > To: pan

> > Cc: TWEETERS tweeters

> > Subject: Re: [Tweeters] King County rarities (not)

> >

> > Alan, you made a good point here in your last sentence. I don’t know why

> people plant willows around wetlands like this, thereby fairly quickly

> destroying their value as shorebird habitat. It’s been done at Montlake

> Fill, it’s been done at Magnuson Park, and I know it’s been done at other

> constructed wetlands. Willows and cottonwoods come in soon enough on their

> own, and my recommendation has always been to actively manage for

> shorebirds—clear out the woody vegetation that invariably becomes

> established at such places and not only ruins it for shorebirds and some

> other wetland species but even eliminates the views that birders cherished

> before the trees blocked them.

> >

> > We have lots of trees in this area but not lots of open meadows and

> wetlands. What is not liked about the latter scarce habitats?

> >

> > I don’t know why the various agencies have this bias, and it would be

> good to bring out in the open and discuss in the environmental community.

> There seems to be no trace of an environmental master plan for the region.

> >

> > Dennis Paulson

> > Seattle

> >

> >> On May 15, 2021, at 4:48 PM, pan <panmail at mailfence.com> wrote:

> >>

> >> Tweets,

> >>

> >> I made the wrong decision last minute this morning and went east to

> Redmond rather than my usual Discovery Park (where goodies reported). Just

> so you know it's not a given, I spent an hour scoping the wetlands off

> Avondale Road around 85th, and did not see Pectoral Sandpiper.

> >> Greater Yellowlegs, 3

> >> Spotted Sandpiper, 1

> >> Long-billed Dowitcher, 1

> >> Killdeer, ~4

> >> Blue-winged Teal, 1

> >> Cinnamon Teal, 1 (a couple females unidentified at distance)

> >> Great Blue Heron

> >> Osprey

> >> others, including a male Lazuli Bunting

> >>

> >> The farthest east pond, also farthest from view, across from about

> 90th, where a couple Pectorals were reported yesterday, had only a

> yellowlegs and a couple crows wading.  These wetlands will probably close

> up in a year or two with all the willows planted.

> >>

> >> 15 May, 2021,

> >>

> >> Alan Grenon

> >> panmail AT mailfence.com

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> Tweeters mailing list

> >> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> >> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > Tweeters mailing list

> > Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> > http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

> > _______________________________________________

> > Tweeters mailing list

> > Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> > http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>

>

>

>

> --

>

> Steve Hampton

>

> Port Townsend, WA

>

> *Qatay, S'Klallam territory*

>

>

>



-- 
Steve Hampton
Port Townsend, WA
*Qatay, S'Klallam territory*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20210516/4b38efdf/attachment.html>