>Regarding the ponds: The one(s) in the eastern half of the Fill are
>ephemeral. Would creating a pebbly shoreline, rather than continuing to
>plant the alders, dogwood, bulrushes, and sedges attract shorebirds? How
>to keep out the pond bottom strollers, bicyclers when the ponds dry up
>later in the summer?
>
>Maureen E2

Right, they are ephemeral (although lasting longer all the time, as the
fill slowly subsides). That's of course what makes them great shorebird
habitat, the receding shoreline during the summer. No, a pebbly shoreline
won't help at all, no more than the woody vegetation, and would probably be
counterproductive (although a small jetty might attract the occasional rock
shorebird;-)).

If we really want shorebirds there, we have to take our cue from the
national wildlife refuges, as I said, and get a bulldozer in there and
deepen and expand one or more of the ponds, just so it will last longer
into the fall. Really quite easy. Are there any 'dozer drivers out there
in tweeterland? I'd do it myself if someone would let me.

Some people will object to tampering with "nature." Bulldozing a weedy
landfill is not, I believe, to be compared with bulldozing an old-growth
forest. I believe the end fully justifies the means in this case. Larger
ponds would provide more habitat, as well as giving the birds a greater
potential for security. The weedy shoreline vegetation would recover in a
year, and the pond formed or enlarged would fairly quickly develop a full
complement of tasty invertebrates, a shorebird delicatessen of the first
order.

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416