Hey tweets, Several of you have expressed interest in whether I ever
received a reply to my letter to the Center for Urban Horticulture
complaining about the mowing and tree-trimming performed there in recent
weeks. A week and a half ago, I received a reply from Thomas Hinckley,
acting director of CUH and professor of ecosystem science. I have keyboarded
his response below, as well as the letter I sent him in reply:

Dear Ms. Sidles,
Barbara Selemon has provided me with a copy of your email regarding the
mowing practices in the Union Bay Natural Area at the Center for Urban
Horticulture and their potential impact on a number of grassland bird
species. Thank you for voicing your concern and detailing our potential
impacts.

First, let me assure you that we manage the Union Bay Natural Area (UBNA) in
accordance with an approved, joint UW-community management plan produced in
October 1994 (with final modifications dated November 20, 1995). (I would be
more than happy to send you a copy of the plan.) Involved in the development
of this document were faculty and staff from the University of Washington
who were sensitive to ecological and cultural features associated with this
site. In addition, 23 faculty and staff in various departments across the
University, 13 people representing such groups as the Seattle Audubon
Society, the Washington Ornithological Society, the Ravenna Creek Alliance,
Save Union Bay, Laurelhurst Community Club and the Washington Department of
Wildlife, and others were interviewed in person. Similar to any piece of
land, we are managing the UBNA for multiple goals and these include: (1) the
use of this area as an outdoor classroom and laboratory where experiments
and class projects in restoration and conservation ecology may be conducted,
(2) the elimination of invasive species, particularly those listed by King
County, (3) the increased presence of native species, (4) the enhancement of
habitat for a wide diversity of wildlife, and (5) maintenance of the area as
a place of recreation compatible with the other objectives. Similar to any
land management scheme, optimization of any one goal may come at the expense
of others.

When I became acting director of the Center in 1999, I worked with Ms. Helen
Ross of Seattle Audubon to make sure that these management goals continued
to be in accordance with their understanding of land goals for the Union Bay
Natural Area. This information provides you with the foundation of how we
approach the management of the Union Bay Natural Area.

Why do we mow the Union Bay Natural Area? Over 50 % of the area was occupied
eight years ago by the non-native, highly invasive Himalayan blackberry.
Other non-native, invasive plants were gaining a significant foothold on
this site - our goals have been to enhance and, as appropriate, restore
wetland and shoreline habitats and to restore upland habitats to prairie
grasslands or to shrub-tree prairie grasslands. The Puget Sound Area,
particularly south of Puyallup and Tacoma and in the San Juan Islands, had
extensive prairies prior to 1900. European settlement and fire suppression
have resulted in the loss of this critical habitat. Because the soils and
the cap that covers the landfill that comprises 95 % are so arid, a prairie
system was chosen over other, more water demanding systems. Since we are not
allowed to use fire, the best management option, we mow, a widely accepted
alternative. As a result of almost 7 years of mowing, the Union Bay Area now
has a robust and diverse grassland. If we were to stop mowing, the Himalayan
blackberry would rapidly and eventually, completely reoccupy the site,
creating a haven for abandoned Easter bunnies and rats. At the same time,
tall, dry grass in a frequently used, urban area could be a potential fire
storm.

Prior to mowing this year, we again contacted the Seattle Audubon Society
and we were told when it would be best to mow. We followed their recommended
timing. Because the mower trails the tractor, the operator can make very
rapid decisions regarding potential negative impacts on wildlife and thus
either postpone or move if an impact is possible. We feel that we are
following approved management plans for the site and we are using best
management practices in our efforts to diversity, restore and enhance the
Union Bay Natural Area.

Because grass coverage and growth has improved each year and this year was
the most spectacular over the life of this landfill, you probably noticed a
greater "impact." Our success means that mowing will become increasingly
more visible. At the same time, the Himalayan blackberry has proven to be a
tenacious occupant of the site requiring persistent mowing.

However, you have pointed out several potential impacts that we may not have
been aware of or were informed about. I have asked Professor David Manuwal,
an ornithologist at the University of Washington, to work with the staff at
the Center and with Seattle Audubon to review management of the site and to
make specific recommendations. There may be ways we can continue to control
invasive plants while minimizing our impacts on certain wildlife species. I
will share these recommendations with you as soon as they are available. It
would be my goal to have these prior to the initiation of mowing during
2004.

I hope that this has addressed your concerns. We value such input and we
strive, within constraints, to accommodate suggestions. We greatly
appreciate hearing from users of the area.

Sincerely, yours,
Thomas M. Hinckley
Director
Professor, Ecosystem Sciences

My reply:
Dear Dr. Hinckley,
Thank you very much for taking the time to write such a thorough and
thoughtful response to my concerns about the recent mowing and tree-trimming
at the Montlake Fill (the Union Bay Nature Area).

I certainly do not envy you your job of trying to balance so many different
(and sometimes competing) interests in the site. The Fill is a unique nature
area with a worldwide reputation among birders. Justifiably so. This morning
I was out there and saw more than 40 different bird species, including two
purple martins and two Lincoln's sparrows. The martins have long been absent
from the Fill; these are the first I have ever seen there. As for the
Lincoln's sparrows, they are, in my opinion, among the most beautiful (and
elusive) sparrows of our region. I was also able to watch a substantial
flock of warbling vireos and Cassin's vireos hunting for grubs in the tall
trees, a rare sight indeed and one seen here only during migration. I also
was happy to have spotted a female bufflehead returning for the winter, an
early arrival. As is always true at the Fill, there is a constant coming and
going of birds as various species change places and follow their separate
ecological paths.

I was relieved to hear you describe the care with which your staff is trying
to manage the control of invasive species and the establishment of a true
prairie at the site. Getting Seattle Audubon involved was an inspired
decision and one that I hope you will continue to pursue.

Without any intention of trying to second-guess Seattle Audubon, however, I
want to stress the importance of hands-on familiarity with the birds at the
Fill during any given season. There are rarely large quantities of any one
species present at the Fill at any one time, but there is huge diversity of
individuals. I believe this is partly a result of the fact that the site is
small and the microhabitats even smaller. Thus, the character of the
birdlife at the Fill is, I believe, best understood at the individual level
more or less.

For example, there is only one family of belted kingfishers at the Fill. If
that family were to be driven away from the site, the Fill would have no
kingfishers at all. So that one family is important. As another example,
this summer, there were four families of common yellowthroats (to the best
of my knowledge) between the main pond and the cattails along the south
border. This is the best year we've had in a long time for common
yellowthroats, but even so, the numbers were limited. The tree swallows had
a good year, too, nesting in the snag at the point and also in the houses
hung in the bay and the slough. The savannah sparrows had a moderately
successful breeding season; I've seen many years that were better but a few
that were worse. The towhee family near the Wedding Rock did well this year,
as did the Bewick's wren family in the circular grove of trees nearby. The
cinnamon teal family on the main pond successfully raised four ducklings to
adulthood.

Being able to report such intimate facts about individual birds is very
common at the Fill. It is, in fact, one of the reasons why the Fill is so
beloved by birders. We can see really great birds close up and get to know
their habits as individuals. No other site in my experience consistently
allows such close-up views.

Every year, however, the microsites chosen by individual birds vary. For
example, in one year two sora families raised a baby in plain view, one at
the north end of the main pond and one in the secluded pond near the point
(Cinnamon Teal Pond). This year, no soras were present at either location.

To me, this means that human management at the Fill should be particularized
to the individual birds and their activities, as much as possible. Just as
people are aware and careful about bald eagle nesting sites, so we should be
aware and careful about passerine nesting sites.

Thus I would urge the ornithologists and other experts who advise you to
walk the Fill for a few days before they recommend specific mowing and
trimming activities. Or talk to the birders who spend a lot of time at the
Fill and can show your staff where the birds are in any given season. I
realize that this may raise the level of administrative detail to a degree
that might be intimidating to contemplate. But if the Fill is really the
Union Bay *Nature* Area, then we humans should cater to nature, I think.

Sincerely,
Connie Sidles