<html><head></head><body><div class="yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><div><p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">Hi all,<br></p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">I’d like to thank Michael Scuderi and Jim Betz for raising questions
about the Wiley Slough project, particularly the treecutting.</p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">I have no expertise on the subject and don’t want to be seen
as posing as someone who does.</p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">But there’s reason to be worried. For one thing, Wiley had
become a major stronghold for Tree Swallows and I guess this project will be
the end of that at a time when most Hirundine populations are under stress or
collapsing or have already collapsed in the Westside lowlands.</p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">While I can’t add to the debate I have noticed a tendency of
bureaucracies to want to cut down trees regardless of whether it is justified. </p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">The public wants to know what are the costs and what are the
benefits of a project. For a bureaucracy-- in a purely economic sense--the cost
is the benefit.</p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">One of the starkest examples was Seattle Public Utilities’
original plan for Deadhorse Canyon in South Seattle. That original preferred plan
involved a major removal of old-growth trees in the heart of the Canyon
including very large Western Red Cedar and Douglas Fir.</p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">SPU has backed off on that apparently, but the whole idea of
removing old-growth trees along a stream corridor in an effort to “improve” it
got me curious.<span> </span>I happen to have a
stream scientist brother, J. Denis Newbold, PhD from Berkeley, 40 years a
senior scientist with the Stroud Water Research Foundation in SE Pennsylvania,
author of many papers, has been involved with the Clean Water Act etc. He told
me no, there would never be a scientific basis for removing trees for the
purpose of reducing stream sedimentation. “If it does involve taking trees I
would get up in arms to try to fight it. Whatever they are proposing they can’t
prove that it is better than leaving the trees.” </p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">That reminded me of the paper Michael Scuderi’s cited that apparently could not find a scientific justification for removing trees from a dike.</p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal"><br></p>
<div>In case anyone is interested in looking into this further, here is the link Michael originally
provided for that research in his post to Tweeters:</div>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal"><a href="https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/civil_works/levee_safety/USACE%20Levee%20Vegetation%20Study%20Report%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/civil_works/levee_safety/USACE%20Levee%20Vegetation%20Study%20Report%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf</a></p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">Thanks all,</p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">Ed Newbold</p>
<p class="ydp74af2d6fMsoNormal">Beacon Hill, where, thankfully Buty Creek is up and running and serving many customers after
being down with its first mainstem leak in 20 years, and where our darling
White-throated Sparrow continues. </p></div><br></div></div></body></html>