Subject: Re: Montlake and E-5
Date: May 9 08:36:54 1994
From: Eugene Hunn - hunn at u.washington.edu


Hi,

Re the proposed development of a soccer field on lot E-5 adjacent to the
Montlake Fill Research Natural Area [or whatever the sign says it is].
It's a long story and I can just hint at it here. The Montlake Fill was
created on the top of a massive land fill dating to ca. 1920s. The
University contracted with the city for it to be used as the city dump
for several decades. It was capped ca. 1970. A detailed environmental
impact statement was developed shortly thereafter. Dennis Paulson wrote
a substantial segment of it. The recommendation then was that it be
reserved as a "natural" area, reconstituted as such, of course. It is
largely within the 200 yard shoreline development limits and on highly
unstable soil. It is sinking, etc. It is unlikely that any buildings
could be legally constructed on it, but the demand for recreational play
fields and parking lots remain a realistic competing use. A committee
that I chaired met many times during I think it was about 1988 to develop
management guidelines for the area for the University, on the heels of an
incident in which a Gadwall nest was destroyed by a mowing operation near
lot E-5. Our committee seconded the original EIS recommendation that the
best use of the area [the boundaries of which vary slightly from plan to
plan] was to be _managed_ as an open grassland/with scattered
brush/wetland habitat mosaic for research (into the reclamation of
degraded urban lands), teaching (for various biological & environemental
studies programs), and service (as an amenity highly valued by
significant segments of the community, including the adjacent Laurelhurst
neighborhood and the birding community, which uses the area for field
trips, etc.). This was accepted by the central administration, the area
signed (which happened shortly before, actually), a manager appointed (a
faculty member of the Center For Urban Horticulture, which has
administrative oversight responsibility for the area within the UW
administrative system), etc. The faculty member appointed as manager
shortly thereafter left the UW and the management system we devised has
been largely ignored. The current committee is, I understand, an attempt
to revive the management system.

In any case, as a member of the University and/or local birding community
you have a right to speak out on how this piece of University [i.e.,
State] property is to be developed. The interests that speak most
eloquently and/or loudly will likely get their way. The parking lot in
question was long ago slated to be torn out and the land either used for
Urban Horticulture research plantings or to be added to the Research
Natural Area already designated. It's development as a playing field was
specifically not recommended by any of these prior studies/committees.

In any case, the committee whose chair and administrative assistant I
listed Friday have requested community input. It is not the least
inappropriate to communicate to them how you may have used the area and
the value it has for you in its present state.

Eugene Hunn.

On Fri, 6 May 1994 CASSIDYM at delphi.com wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was greatly disturbed by the brief note on Tweeters concerning possible
> plans for E-5. I heard your request that I express myself directly to the
> chair of the committee, but don't have much information (other than
> emotional reaction) other than what was mentioned in the Tweeters note.
>
> Here it is Friday night, and I'm thinking of driving across town to crawl
> around in the HUB looking for the article under a table. I really don't to
> go blasting my thoughts off to a decision maker without at least reading the
> basic material, and would greatly like more information (and soon!).
>
> How can a soccer coach "decide" these things?
>
> What is your committee and what role/authority/power does it have?
>
> Who "owns" the Montlake fill?
>
> You apparently have enough of a personal interest to put a post on Tweeters,
> and I can certainly understand how you may not feel comfortable expressing
> your opinion, but can you can send something out addressing the "objective"
> questions surrounding this issue? Hard facts like what your committee is
> and it's mission, it's members, it's prior work (which you eluded to), the
> purpose of the group, the management, etc.
>
> I'd hate to see a bunch of emotional responses flood the chair and the
> committee, all of which are discounted becuase they didn't know the facts
> and are simply a bunch of "yelling bird-watchers". Which will be the
> response unless the bird-watchers know more to speak intelligently to the
> subject.
>
> Tweeters is an excellent forum for such information. Maybe you don't want
> to do it, but maybe you know and can encourage someone else to at least send
> out information so we can be informed.
>
> I'd really like to send my thoughts onto someone, but just don't feel
> informed well enough. Hope you can help me out.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Martin Cassidy
> 2900 First Ave #N410
> Seattle, WA 98121
> cassidym at delphi.com
>