It seems there's a basic education need, even among non-birder biologists,
about shorebirds and their migratory stopover needs. This is of course a
huge public topic in the East re: the Red Knot. In the West, I know Arcata,
CA hosts Godwit Days every year as a birding festival-- and to raise local
awareness about shorebird migratory stopover habitat. Perhaps organizations
in Puget Sound can do something similar?
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 9:24 AM Scuderi, Michael R CIV USARMY CENWS (USA) <
Michael.R.Scuderi at usace.army.mil> wrote:
>
Kelly is right. The debate on the value of shorebird habitat goes back at
>
least to the Auburn Downs Racetrack wetland mitigation in the mid-1990s. At
>
that point Dr. Tom Hruby from Department of Ecology was developing the
>
percussor to the current Washington State Wetland rating system. There
>
were four major functions being assessed, Water Quality, Hydrologic
>
functions, Fish habitat, and wildlife habitat. At that time, for wildlife
>
habitat, there was a dichotomy between wetland models which ranked forested
>
wetlands which favored riparian species (Bob Zeigler did a lot of work on
>
this), and open water wetlands which supported waterfowl and shorebirds.
>
At the time most people were not noticing the decline in freshwater
>
wetlands, and were more worried about reestablishment of the forested
>
wetlands that once predominated the Puget Sound lowlands (for a fun look at
>
what was here check out Dawson and Bowles, 1909). To my chagrin, the
>
forested wetland people won out, these wetlands get higher credit in
>
mitigation formulas used then and now. That is in my opinion why we are
>
seeing the drive towards more forested wetlands.
>
>
A second factor is the buffer zone. One of the criteria used in the
>
current Washington state wetland model is interspersion. A typical marsh
>
with open water, mudflat, and then a rush/reed fringe gets a lower score
>
than if you have a forested buffer around it (more interspersion).
>
>
Finally, if you create a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
>
Priority Habitat, you get a higher score. Forested wetlands are a priority
>
habitat. Freshwater emergent habitat is not a priority habitat. Of course
>
WDFW could be petitioned to make freshwater shorebird habitat a priority
>
habitat.
>
>
So basically, the books are stacked against wetlands that contain
>
shorebird habitat. In addition, there are more maintenance costs in
>
keeping up open water and mudflats, either through maintaining high water
>
levels, eliminating reed canary grass, and removing encroaching willows and
>
other water loving woody vegetation.
>
>
This is a project that local Audubons and WOS might consider taking on to
>
protect disappearing shorebird habitat. The M Street marsh in Auburn could
>
be a good example to consider for shorebird/waterfowl habitat, though
>
surveyors were out there recently (which is usually not a good thing).
>
>
Mike Scuderi
>
Cotinga777 at yahoo.com
>
Kent, WA
>
>
-----Original Message-----
>
From: mcallisters4 at comcast.net <mcallisters4 at comcast.net>
>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 6:17 PM
>
To: 'TWEETERS tweeters' <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] King County rarities (not)
>
>
During the debate about wetland "restoration" and mitigation credits for
>
the work at the Montlake Fill I weighed in agreeing with Dennis and the
>
idea that the "highest and best" habitat value for this location was early
>
successional wetland habitat that would be more likely to attract and
>
provide basic support for species that have a difficult time finding
>
suitable habitat elsewhere, like shorebirds. The primary wetland regulators
>
in Washington, the Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of
>
Engineers, establish how much credit given for creating different kinds of
>
wetland conditions. A typical late successional type with a strong willow
>
or shrub component gets the most credits, I believe.
>
>
It would cost less to forego the planting of willows, Spiraea, and other
>
woody plants, and, perhaps, the compensation could be a commitment to
>
periodically set back succession to maintain open muddy shorelines and
>
shallows.
>
>
Kelly McAllister
>
Formerly WSDOT, Olympia
>
>
-----Original Message-----
>
From: Tweeters <tweeters-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of
>
Dennis Paulson
>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2021 6:03 PM
>
To: pan <panmail at mailfence.com>
>
Cc: TWEETERS tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
>
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] King County rarities (not)
>
>
Alan, you made a good point here in your last sentence. I don't know why
>
people plant willows around wetlands like this, thereby fairly quickly
>
destroying their value as shorebird habitat. It's been done at Montlake
>
Fill, it's been done at Magnuson Park, and I know it's been done at other
>
constructed wetlands. Willows and cottonwoods come in soon enough on their
>
own, and my recommendation has always been to actively manage for
>
shorebirds-;clear out the woody vegetation that invariably becomes
>
established at such places and not only ruins it for shorebirds and some
>
other wetland species but even eliminates the views that birders cherished
>
before the trees blocked them.
>
>
We have lots of trees in this area but not lots of open meadows and
>
wetlands. What is not liked about the latter scarce habitats?
>
>
I don't know why the various agencies have this bias, and it would be good
>
to bring out in the open and discuss in the environmental community. There
>
seems to be no trace of an environmental master plan for the region.
>
>
Dennis Paulson
>
Seattle
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
Tweeters mailing list
>
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
--
Steve Hampton
Port Townsend, WA
*Qatay, S'Klallam territory*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20210517/6570256b/attachment.html>