---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 15:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Clement Hamilton <cwh at u.washington.edu>
To: dpaulson at ups.edu
Cc: David Manuwal <auklet at u.washington.edu>,
Kern Ewing <kern at u.washington.edu>
Subject: Ecological Research Natural Area (Montlake Fill)

Dennis: Dave Manuwal forwarded a message from you with regard to the
ERNA, and I thought I should throw some comments into the mix. The
first, and main one, is that I believe all our goals for the area are
very much the same. I value your input, and that of all the birders who
use the area. (And, to prove that's just not bureaucrat-speak, I have
seen a Narino tapaculo on Cerro Pirre in the Darien, and participated in
the Xmas bird count in Panama one year.) So, the point is, feel free to
get in touch with me directly with questions, comments, complaints,
praise (!), whatever. We're trying to be the good guys here, doing our
best with scant resources.
A few points of clarification might help. First off, I presume
we sent you a copy of the report we made about the area to the UW
president and provost; if not, let me know, and I'll send another. It
outlines our goals for the ERNA. One is to increase the native component
of the fauna and flora, at the expense of broom, blackberry, and the
other exotic players. We also wish to maintain and to increase the
diversity of biota and of habitats. No one envisions a woodland, for
heaven's sake, and three small patches of Garry oak (most of which are
likely to not survive -- like buying lottery tickets!) are consistent
with open understory. Our major restoration emphasis, in fact, concerns
the grasses and forbs -- Kern Ewing and his students are experimenting
with various ways of introducing natives such as Idaho fescue, so that
they can outcompete the exotic grasses and forbs. So, our goal is
ultimately greater naturalization, not urbanization, of the area; and I
think we have the university administration convinced that is a valuable
thing to do.
In that regard, you mention the wider paths and interpretive
signs. One complaint we heard in our interviews with birders is that the
network of anastomosing paths in some areas results in people tramping
all over the place, thereby maximizing their deleterious impact. We feel
that making one "loop trail" the main path that is clearly intended to
follow, many subsidiary paths will get much less use and will gradually
disappear, to the benefit of the wildlife. As to interpretation, you and
I and the initiated know how important it is to have such a place in an
urbn area, but many of the dog-walkers and bicycle commuters have little
idea of that; and the more we can educate folks, and to increase the
area's "natural constituency," the more likely we can maintain its open
character far into the future. The more persons who are supportive of us
as we defend the open space against periodic attempts at incursion by
folks such as the Athletic Department, the better; and using the area as
a demonstrable teaching site, for our students in many departments and
schools and for the public, helps immeasurably.
Anyway, enough of my rambling. Suffice it to say that we're on
the same side here. Let's stay in touch, and let me know when you see
something that deserves our attention or you have an idea that would help
achieve our goals. Yours, Clem

________________________________
Clement W. Hamilton, Director
Center for Urban Horticulture
GF-15 University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 USA
phone 206-685-2589
fax 206-685-2692
________________________________