Well I just read jennifer Seavey posting to tweeters. We had been carrying on
the discussion in private, but since it's now out in the open a few points in
her posting need clearing up.

> So i went down there and looked the place over. I spotted Central
> Pond, which had been totally cleared of veg and wondered why that had
> been done and what was going to happen next. So i asked Kern Ewing
> (prof in Urban Hort) and Stuart Mackay (fellow Tweeter and Purple
> Loosestrife extraordinare (sp?)) And well....i believed that i had the go
> ahead for revegetation of a VERY SMALL part of the pond's shoreline.

Jennifer was keen to help with the work, but since the course was about
restoration ecology it seemed unfair and a bit limiting for the students
involved to simply start pulling loosestrife. We discussed a project about
restoring an area of grassland for a hypothetical pair of burrowing owls - the
value of this would have been a small amount of brush removal, but more
importantly cataloging the grass species and looking at ways to encourage
rodents etc. The idea would have been to explore all the ecolgical options and
therefore give maximum benefit to the students concerned, rather than
treating them as grunts.

The next thing that was discussed was some planting and restoration of the
marshy area between the pond at the corner of the E5 parking lot and the
slough. This area is "relatively unused" by birders, it has some loosestrife,
and there is plenty of scope for small but detailed and comprehensive studies
to be performed. We did discuss planting things from marsh plants to dogwoods,
since it would enhance the nature of the area.

I assumed, incorrectly as it appears, that this was the project that Jennifer
decided to undertake. Indeed when I visited the area 2 weeks ago some
loosestrife had been removed and signs were posted notifying people of the
project.

WE SPECIFICALLLY DID NOT DISCUSS IN ANY WAY CARRYING WORK OUT AT THE CENTRAL POND.

As far as I am concerned the work is not finished so planting anything would
be a complete waste of time at the moment.

I should also point out that Kern Ewing the Prof at CUH in charge of the Fill
specifically told students to clear any project taking place at the central
pond area with me first. CUH is very appreciative of the HUGE amount of hard
work we carried out.

> I believe it is important to have veg in some proportion along the
> pond. Long -toed Salamanders have been spotted aroung the pond and they
> need some thing to attach their egg masses to during breeding. Also i
> feel that it is within Montlake's bird goals to try the obtain the
> highest bird species diversity we can. Since increasing the variety of
> habitats is key to increasing the variety of birds...i believe this
> project is worthy.

The overwhelming strength of Montlake Fill is that it is comprised of a
patchwork of habitats. It is our goal in working there to restore and enhance
this to achieve the maximum amount of diversity in the species using the
area. Current work is focussing on shorebirds, a group for which the Fill is
famous. I would like to see more native grassland plants, better habitats for
dragonflies, bats boxes etc. Future work will address this. We have submitted
a workplan to the Centre For Urban Horticulture suggesting a series of
miniprojects which will extend the work carried out to benefit more than just
shorebirds.

I should also point out that there are many more shorebird species which used
to be common at the Fill but now are no longer. The small number bitterns
have habitat elsewhere in the area so it seems best to concentrate on the
strengths of each area at the Fill. As far as the central pond is concerned
that is shorebirds, not bitterns. The sedge being planted is too small to
present any perticular habitat enhancement for bitterns - especially since
they are sensitive to disturbance.


This is only a breakdown in communication which will be resolved to the
mutual benefit of everybody concerned.

Stuart