BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE PLANTS by Clay Antineau

BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, AND MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE PLANTS

Clayton Antieau
Botanist and Watershed Planner
206-233-3711; FAX 206-233-1527; clayton.antieau@ci.seattle.wa.us
Seattle Public Utilities, City of Seattle, Watershed Management Division, Cedar River Watershed
19901 Cedar Falls Road SE, North Bend, WA 98045-9681
Clayton J. Antieau 2001

Published in the Conference Proceedings: Haase, D.L. and R. Rose, editors. 2001. Native Plant Propagation and Restoration Strategies. Sponsored by the Nursery Technology Cooperative and Western Forestry and Conservation Association. December 12-13, 2001.

ABSTRACT

Weeds are often not the cause, but symptoms of depleted ecosystem integrity−often legacies of on-going or past poor management practices. Unless ecological causes of weed invasions are understood in integrated, ecosystem-scale frameworks, weed management projects are often doomed to fail. It may be useful to consider weed management tools as either “ecosystem” tools or "agricultural-scale" tools. Ecosystem tools are usually used on small scales, are minimally disruptive, have longer-term impacts on community development, but act slowly. Agricultural tools are typically used on larger scales, but usually have highly disruptive, short-term effects on ecosystems.

Several lessons emerge from experiences managing weeds in their ecosystem contexts. These include needs to understand relevant ecological concepts and the importance of integrated approaches, to implement regular monitoring with provision for true adaptive management, and to pursue new technologies/strategies. There is also need for information clearinghouses where interested parties share weed management experiences and seek information resulting from others’ experiences.

KEYWORDS: WEEDS, INVASIVE SPECIES, WEED MANAGEMENT, ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT, PHALARIS ARUNDINACEA, POLYGONUM CUSPIDATUM, CYTISUS SCOPARIUS

INTRODUCTION

Noxious weeds pose serious challenges to the management and restoration of ecosystems throughout the Pacific Northwest. Aggressive weeds displace desirable habitat and species diversity, often persisting in the face of active weed control efforts. Weed management is a large topic, covering myriad weed species growing in many places, and involving many management strategies and tools. Further, effective weed management is strongly situational, paying close attention to the details of space and place. The limited time allotted this paper precludes detailed discussion of specific weed management situations or problems. However, a useful global approach might be to contrast a traditional weed management philosophy with an alternative philosophy that fits more snugly with the goals and objectives of watershed restoration. Such exploration may help you more fully understand the complexities of the weed infestations you might be working on in your specific restoration efforts. Thus, this paper reviews foundational considerations, illustrated using a couple of the more widespread invasive weeds in the maritime Northwest. The "foundation" component focuses on understanding weed infestations in the contexts of the ecosystems in which they occur and of the key ecosystem processes they disrupt. Understanding these ecosystem contexts provides insights into possible management strategies for these and other weeds, and promises greater success in achieving restoration goals.



TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO WEED MANAGEMENT

I'm a botanist and planner on a team of biologists and other scientists that manage the Cedar River Watershed, the main source of drinking water for 1.3 million citizens of Seattle and surrounding communities. The 91,000-acre Watershed is closed to unrestricted public access and managed for abundant, high quality water and fish and wildlife habitat. Contrary to how that may sound, the Watershed is far from pristine, having endured 150 years of timber extraction, road building, stream channelization and cleaning, mining, and urban development. Land management is guided by a Habitat Conservation Plan (developed under the Endangered Species Act), which is essentially a watershed restoration plan that directs us to repair past damages. One of my responsibilities in the Watershed is to set the direction of weed management in the Watershed by developing weed management plans, implementing weed management projects, monitoring, and so forth. The task is challenging because herbicides are not allowed in the Watershed.

Team members who manage the Watershed use working definitions of restoration to broadly guide their work. The definition I like is from Apfelbaum and Chapman (1997):

"….a practical management strategy that uses ecological processes in order to maintain ecosystem composition, structure, and function with minimal human intervention."

In addition to being a botanist and planner, I am also a horticulturist trained within the traditional agricultural context of that discipline. I consider the traditional or "agricultural" approaches to weed management that I am familiar with and contrast those with this definition of ecosystem restoration. Two contrasts appear immediately. First, traditional approaches to weed management embed an implicit assumption that humans will always be involved in managing weeds, whereas a goal of restoration strives to eventually eliminate the need for human interventions. The second contrast focuses on ecosystem processes. Traditional weed management is preoccupied with the weed itself, purposefully removing it from the ecological context in which it occurs. Traditional weed management asks "How do I control this weed?"

We are familiar with the traditional tools used to answer that question: row-cropping or strip-cropping; intercropping; rotations; cover or competition crops; cultivation (e.g., disking); fallow; herbicides; mowing/chaining; predation (grazing; biocontrols); fire; and so forth. Some of these have a long track record, with a commensurately long legacy of adverse impacts to natural and social resources: Widespread Herbicide Use (contaminated surface/ground waters, altered soil floras, altered wildlife, estrogenic activity, threats to human health, etc.); Introduced Organisms/Pests (escaped biological controls, escaped seedings of exotic grasses etc.); and Large-scale Habitat Modification (biodiversity loss,
increased erosion/sedimentation, flooding/drought, etc.).

ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTS IN WEED MANAGEMENT

What's the Right Question to Ask? Or, What are Useful Ecosystem Themes in Weed Management?

What happens if we stop asking "How do I control this weed?", and start asking "Why do I have this weed?" Upon contemplation, answers to this question generate several themes, three important themes being the following:

1. Weeds are not the cause, but symptoms of depleted ecosystem integrity⎯often the legacy of on-going or past poor management practices. This is illustrated by historic overgrazing in the shrub- and desert-steppe of the Columbia Basin. Grazing destroyed the microbiotic crusts that were integral to the health of that ecosystem, leading to erosion, biodiversity loss, and catastrophic biological invasions. (See http://www.soilcrust.org/ for a discussion of the structure, function, and ecology of microbiotic crusts.)

2. Unless ecological causes of weed invasions are addressed and understood in an integrated, ecosystem-scale framework, weed management efforts are often doomed to fail. This is illustrated by frequently observed replacement of one managed weed with a non-managed weed, as in the case of bio-predated purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) being replaced by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea).

3. Ecological restoration takes time and operates on scales much different than the regulatory, political, and fiscal timescales that humans are used to. This is illustrated by formerly forested wetlands that are now swards of reed canarygrass. Placement of coarse woody debris initiates a key ecosystem process in these ecosystems that operates on a scale of centuries.

Weeds Compromise Ecosystem Integrity

If weeds are placed back into the ecosystem contexts in which they occur, we discover some enlightening facts about the biology and ecology of those weeds. In particular, one of the more enlightening areas of discussion is how weeds disrupt key ecosystem processes. Altered key ecosystem processes and services include the following, among others:

nutrient cycling and carbon cycling (Scot’s broom)
sediment erosion and deposition rates (spartina)
disturbance intensities and frequencies (cheat grass)
evapotranspiration, water cycling, and hydroperiods (tamarisk; reed canarygrass)
soil chemistry and soil biological processes (Russian knapweed)
habitat availability for native plants/animals/other organisms (reed canarygrass)
primary productivity (ryegrass)
food web interactions/characteristics (trophic levels)
genetic integrity (hawkweeds)
resilience to disturbance (incl. biological invasions) (Scot’s broom)
biodiversity (spotted knapweed; cheat grass; reed canarygrass)

If this is what weeds do, can humans intervene specifically to interrupt these disruptions, effectively using ecosystem processes as weed management tools? Recent scientific research and field experiences confirm this is possible. Successful weed management may not be about managing individual species, but rather managing natural ecosystem processes essential to ecosystem integrity.

"ECOSYSTEM" TOOLS CONTRASTED WITH "AGRICULTURAL" TOOLS

It may be useful to consider weed management tools as either “ecosystem” tools or "agricultural-scale" tools. Ecosystem tools are usually used on small scales, are minimally disruptive, have longer-term impacts on community development, but act slowly. Agricultural tools are typically used on larger scales, but usually have highly disruptive, short-term effects on ecosystems. What are some "ecosystem" tools that have been used to manage weeds?

ALLELOPATHY
COMPETITIVE EXCLUSION (planting, mulching, seeding, shading)
MICROBIOTIC SOIL CRUSTS
SOIL HEALTH (flora and fauna)
DOWNED/BURIED WOOD (feed the carbon cycle)
MICRO- AND MACRO-TOPOGRAPHY (de-leveling)
BIODIVERSITY
SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES (pH/nutrient management)
PREDATION (biological controls; grazing)
HYDROPERIOD ALTERATION (flooding/drainage)
EDGE EFFECTS (planting circles)

To illustrate the implementation of some of these "ecosystem" tools, I'll use macro-nutrient management (anti-fertilization), edge effects (planting circles), soil health, and downed and buried wood.

Macro-nutrient Management

Many weed species are known to be especially competitive in the presence of free (ionic) macro-nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Native plants are generally more competitive when soils are less fertile or lack free macro-nutrients. In disturbed ecosystems, nutrient cycling is altered to distinctly favor weeds. A technique for immobilizing free nutrients adds large quantities of carbon (such as compost or sugar). The soil fungi and bacteria increase on this energy source, immobilizing any available nitrogen and phosphorus. Desirable native species and their mycorrhizal associates are introduced during this 1 to 2 year window and benefit from reduced weed vigor. This process, sometimes called "anti-fertilization," is best used on soils that naturally have low fertility (such as sands or sandy-textured soils) and was first described by St. John (1988).

Edge Effects

The zone where two or more different plant communities come together is known as "edge." Edge environments are areas of ecological tension deriving from gradients of light, moisture, cover, and food. For those weed species forming monocultures (such as reed canarygrass), large-diameter planting circles or blocks have been used to successfully introduce "edge" (Antieau 2000). Herbicides are typically used to eliminate the weed from within a planting circle. Once the grass is dead, the blocks or circles are densely planted with desirable native vegetation such as willows, appropriate conifers, and/or deciduous shrubs. As planted areas of dense vegetation grow, their canopy begins to reduce the vigor and cover of adjacent areas of weeds, largely due to shading. As shaded weeds decline in vigor and density, desirable native plants become established and the planting circles "enlarge" into the weed infestation.

Soil Health

Biological soil processes have only recently come to light as integral ecosystem processes. Much is still unknown, but work by Elaine Ingham, Michael Amaranthus, and others has demonstrated the intimate and essential relationships that above-ground vegetation has with fungal, bacterial, and non-vertebrate soil inhabitants (Amaranthus 2001; Ingham and Molina 1991; Perry and Amaranthus 1990; USDA, NRCS 1999). Mycorrhizal associations have been shown to impart ecosystem resiliency to weed infestations (St. John 1999).

Downed and Buried Wood

Until recently, the role of wood in ecosystems was poorly understood. We now know wood is integral to key ecosystem process because it houses and feeds fungal and animal organisms, provides critical moisture reserves, and becomes germination and growing substrate for natural (shade-tolerant) conifer regeneration (in wetter parts of the maritime Northwest). In forested ecosystems, canopy loss facilitates and supports the invasion of invasive herbaceous species through a variety of mechanisms. The absence of wood in these ecosystems continues to impede natural successional processes that potentially keep weeds at bay.

ECOSYSTEM CONCEPTS APPLIED TO SPECIFIC WEED SPECIES

Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)

Reed canarygrass is a typical disturbance-response species, often indicating past clearing, cultivation and leveling, altered hydroperiods, purposeful seeding, etc. However, it is also thought to be native in at least some parts of the Pacific Northwest (Antieau 2000). Infestations in formerly forested habitats are thought to dramatically alter soil flora. Long-term management themes focus on establishing forests that cast deep year-round shade (where appropriate, as in Puget Trough), getting wood back into/onto the soil, and introducing biodiversity. Innovative means of getting there include planting circles (edge effects), pole plantings, de-leveling (micro-topographic diversity), and coarse woody debris placement (carbon cycling; soil flora; plant succession).

Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. sachalinense, and hybrids)

Japanese knotweed is increasingly a problem in wetter parts of the Pacific Northwest. This species is generally considered a disturbance-response species, following road-building, clearing, and cultivation activities. It is also known to invade flood-disturbed zones in riparian and wetland ecosystems. The species is suspected of altering soil flora in formerly forested areas. Long-term management themes focus on competitive exclusion (establishing tree canopies that cast deep shade during the growing season and getting wood back into/onto the soil. Innovative means of getting there include competitive exclusion using made materials (cardboard, carpets….) and then followed by dense plantings of desirable species. Untested ecosystem methods include micro-nutrient management (boron) and managing soil pH, but the environmental impacts of such approaches have not been well-examined.

Scot's Broom (Cytisus scoparius)

Scot's broom is often a typical indicator of soil disturbance (road-building, clearing, and cultivation), but is also known to invade grassland and oak ecosystems that have damaged microbiotic crust systems. Infestation is thought to lead to dramatically altered soil biota and altered nutrient cycling. Long-term ecosystem management themes focus on limiting seedling establishment by establishing plant canopies that inhibit germination/establishment (to wit, re-establish microbiotic crusts, i.e. competitive exclusion) or re-establishing fire regimes. Innovative means of getting there include re-establishing microbiotic crusts via “seeding.”

CONCLUSION

Weeds are often not the cause, but a symptom of depleted ecosystem integrity−often the legacy of on-going or past poor management practices. It is important to be able to assess the potential ecological causes of weed invasions, and then address and understand these in an integrated, ecosystem-scale framework. Successful weed management may not be about managing individual species, but rather managing natural ecosystem processes essential to ecosystem integrity. Those ecosystem processes may be the most effective tools for managing weed infestations over the long term.

Lessons emerge from our experiences in managing weeds as components of ecosystems. These include needs to understand relevant ecological concepts and the importance of integrated approaches, to implement regular monitoring with provisions for true adaptive management, and to pursue new technologies and strategies. There is also need for information clearinghouses where interested parties can share weed management experiences and seek information resulting from others’ experiences.

LITERATURE CITED

Amaranthus, Michael. 2001. Mycorrhizal management: a look beneath the surface at plant establishment and growth. Land and Water, September/October: 55-59.

Antieau, Clayton. 2000. Emerging themes in reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) management. Proceedings, American Water Resources Association 2000 Summer Specialty Conference (Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-land Use Watersheds). August 28-31, Portland, Oregon.

Apfelbaum, Steve and Kim Chapman. 1997. Ecosystem Management. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Ingham, E.R. and R. Molina. 1991. Interactions between mycorrhizal fungi, rhizosphere organisms, and plants. In Microorganisms, Plants and Herbivores, P. Barbosa (ed.). John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Perry, David and Michael Amaranthus. 1990. The plant-soil bootstrap: microorganisms and reclamation of degraded ecosystems. In Environmental Restoration, John Berger (ed.). Island Press, Washington, D.C.

St. John, Ted. 1999. Nitrate immobilization and the mycorrhizal network for control of exotic ruderals. California Exotic Pest Plant Council News 7(1): 4-5, 10-11.

St. John, Ted. 1989. Soil disturbance and the mineral nutrition of native plants. In Proc. 2nd Native Plant Revegetation Symposium, April 15-18, 1987, J. P. Rieger and B.K. Williams (eds.).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS). 1999. Soil biology primer. Publication PA-1637. August.

AUTHOR

Clayton J. Antieau M.S., Ph.C. is a horticulturist, botanist, and environmental scientist who enthusiastically combines these disciplines to offer unique abilities and perspectives in horticultural and environmental education and environmental science. Clay currently works for the City of Seattle, implementing the Habitat Conservation Plan for the City's municipal drinking water supply, the Cedar River Watershed. Clay is a recognized local authority and educator in Northwest native plants and has taught or lectured on this, wetland science, restoration science, and related subjects at the University of Washington and numerous technical and community colleges around Washington.

INTERSTICES

INTERSTICES: an intervening space, esp. a very small one. ORIGIN: late Middle English:from Latin interstitium, from intersticere - 'to stand between', from inter - 'between' + sistere - 'to stand'

INTERSTITIAL: of, forming, or occupying interstices "the interstitial space"

.......from the New Oxford American Dictionary

City dwellers know it well. The jumbled, disonant urban landscape. Trees from Africa, flowers from Europe, shrubs from South America. Each of these well tended within our own individual private properties. Each planted with little or no thought about what is around them. And in between, are the leftovers. Small parcels of forgotten dirt. Hemmed in by concrete and asphalt. Usually owned by the City and sprouting a motley assortment of whatever will grow there. In Seattle that typically means himalayan blackberry, ivy, holly and laurel. Dense, blanketing vegetation that smothers most every thing else. Here, only the strongest survive

Seattle, like just about every other city, is filled with them. They are invisible, yet are everywhere. These interstices are the only green component of our urban mosaic. This concrete jungle..

In the larger parcels (west Queen Anne green belt overlooking the Magnolia Bridge) stands of Big Leaf Maple fight a slowly losing battle against the creeping tide of Cape Ivy, eventually succumbing to the inevitable

But here and there one can find a few exceptions to this rule. A few brave individuals have chosen to buck the tide. Instead of focusing on only their own little private parcel, they have looked beyond their borders and planted out one of the interstices in the neighborhood. A sight for weary eyes. The power of urban landscaping, to relieve the blight of our concrete jungle, lies in the interstitial.

The best example of this is at the north end of Magnolia near the Ballard Locks. It’s on West Government Way, near the abandoned Giles Landscaping buildings. It’s a small triangular parcel bounded by sidewalk and streets. Filled with waist-high salal and several very healthy arbutus mensezei trees, it lifts my spirits every time I drive by.

Do I think that there will ever be a time when every interstitial space in Seattle will be filled with native plantings, carefully manicured by civically minded neighbors? Of course not. But it’s fun to imagine what the City would look like if it were.

Please visit us at www.discoveryparkhabitat.org for more information.

BAY TERRACE - A FORGOTTEN CORNER OF THE PARK

I've found another one. Forgotten, discarded and disregarded out-of-the-way parcels within the parks boundary but not considered "Discovery Park" by most visitors. Bay Terrace road briefly made "headlines" a few years back when it was raised as a possible property to give American Eagle (AE) in exchange for the Capehart parcel. AE indicated that the property had tremendous development value with many buildable parcels overlooking Salmon Bay to the north. Fortunately, this proposal was abandoned after plenty of shouting and yelling at a few well planned public meetings. But the lesson was clear. Ignore it at your own peril!

As you may recall, Bay Terrace road extends north from the North Parking lot traffic circle and supplies access to a group of private residential lots at the dead-end. The portion of the road that is within Discovery Park is lined by vacant lots that used to contain military housing, but were torn down in the 60's and 70's. Further down the road, outside of Park boundaries, the road accesses about 10-20 residential homes, most of which have the same valuable views to the north overlooking Shilshole marina. Since the road is a dead-end, only limited local traffic uses the road.

Unfortunately, because of the abandoned appearance of the vacant lots within the road, this portion has become a favorite hang-out zone for off-leash dogs and their owners, late night kegger partys and other less desirable activities. I've heard many complaints over the years from property owners about this.

My challenge to those with vested interests (property) on Bay Terrace Road is simple. If you don't want a)the City to sell it off to developers for money and b)unsavory types to use it for illegitimate purposes - take some ownership and responsibility! The property owners are the ones who benefit (and suffer) the most from its development or non-devwelopment. You should be the ones taking the lead. How to do this? Simple. First, planting of additional native conifers and deciduous trees along the road would greatly add to the habitat carrying capacity of the Park. The proximity to an active salmon migratory passage makes this an ideal habitat enhancer. And it would be very cheap to accomplish. Volunteer labor organized to plant a few inexpensive trees. Second, removal of the concrete pads along the road would further discourage illegitimate users, eliminate the "abandoned lot" appearance and enhance habitat. We've demonstrated elsewhere in the Park that removal of unused pavement is cheap, has widespread support among Parks staff and is relatively easy to achieve.

So remember the recent threat of development and learn a simple lesson. The more you treat it as your own, the less likely someone will try to take it from you.

THE OLD BALLFIELD - TIME FOR A NEW USE?

Located just south of the Park's Visitors Center, an open field with a very old baseball backstop sits empty. I've been passing through this area for most of the past 10 years and have never seen an actual baseball game happening. Most of the time it's empty with the occasional dog owner playing fetch with her or his pet.

It strikes me this is an opportunity for the community to consider a new use for this open and relatively unused space. I think we should confront the reality that baseball in Discovery Park is not realistic. The lack of lights, maintenance and outstanding facilities in the nearby Magnolia Playfield next to the Catherine Blaine school, all suggest that to refer to it as the "ballfield" is a stretch.

What to do with it? First, we could do nothing - leaving it as is. It provides open space - but little else. It has no views like the parade ground. A nice place to play catch or throw frisbee. Second, we could plant it over with native vegetation. A combination of ground cover, native shrubs and trees. This could be done slowly, allowing the site to evolve over many years time. Enhancing the diversity of the Parks habitat and adding to it's overall wildlife carrying capability would certainly result in a better Park.

Lastly, a more creative approach would be to use it as a sort of volunteer native plant nursery. Currently, the City Parks nursery supplies plants to the Parks for native restoration. Unfortunately, the number and quality of stock received from the central Parks nursery is limited. We can do better. Given the nearby location of the Visitors Center (restrooms, watering supply), the maintenance yard and access roads, a cooperative volunteer-run native plant nursery would be an ideal use for this parcel.

GARRY OAKS AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT

Recently, the Washington Native Plant Society (WNPS) announced a major new initiative aimed at encouraging the protection and promotion of native Garry Oak habitat in Washington State. I've planted several of these handsome native oaks in my adopted area in the Park. They're slow growing and long lived. They produce beautiful small oak leaves that cling to the tree well into early winter. Once established, they grow into massive heavy limbed structures.

From the WNPS website: "Typical of the southern reaches of Puget Sound country and further south are the unique and special prairie communities which may include our only oak, the Garry Oak. These grassy savanna-like openings occur in gravelly dry soils and are frequently associated with glacial outwash. Here rich meadow communities of grasses and wildflowers intermingle with massive oak trees which may be more than 300 years old.

.... Sadly, these prairies are vanishing as a result of increased development and encroachment by Douglas Fir."

The WNPS link is:
http://www.wnps.org/ecosystems/west_lowland_eco/garry_oak.htm

As I walk through the parade grounds within the historic district in Discovery Park, it strikes me that the open prairie-like meadows of the parade grounds would be ideal for the Garry Oak. Currently, the majority of trees within the historic district are London Plains. These non-native cultivars were planted at the time of the Fort's construction and so represent a "historical heritage". I would argue that the more important living tree heritage would lie in a threatened Garry oak species, rather than a common urban tree found in many cities of the world. Dozens of them can be found around the Parliament building in London, for example.

The slow growing nature of these trees means that any plantings we do now will not become a significant part of the historic district atmosphere for many years to come. This however is no reaon for inaction. The current tree stock in the historic district is limited and aging - prone to disease, high wind and man-made insults. Now is the time we must examine what we want the historic district vegetation to look like - and take appropriate action.

CAPEHART - WHAT SHOULD IT LOOK LIKE IN 20 YEARS?

The City has recently announced an agreement with the Navy and American Eagle which would effectively give the City the entire 25+ acre Capehart site for incorporation into Discovery Park. This is probably the most important acquisition of park property the City has made in a long time and certainly the most important for the Park since its inception in the 70's.

The details of the deal are far from settled, but right now the agreement calls for the Navy and American Eagle to demolish all above ground structures, leaving concrete slabs, pavement and wiring in place. This will likely happen in the next 3-5 years. It apparently will be the City's responsibility to remove the pavement, concrete slabs, etc to prepare for restoration.

Lots of steps have to happen in the short term, but I'd like to think ahead for a moment and consider what this parcel will look like in 20 years or more.

I've posted a picture of Capehart from the air taken a few years ago. Note that the site is surrounded by forest on the west side, meadow on the east, a dense stand of Scots Broom on the south, and the Westpoint access road and more forest on the north side.

Currently, no regular park users are allowed to walk within the parcel, it being a restricted access military residence. The Loop Trail runs along the western edge, running north-south. At the top of the steep road descending to the Metro wastewater plant, the Loop Trail connects to a paved path which runs parallel to the Westpoint road, along its north side.

Unlike the recently acquired 500 area parcel that was long, narrow and effectively blocked the direct passage of walkers from the Visitors Center to the bluff and historic parade grounds, the Capehart parcel does not limit or restrict access of the public to any other park areas. It has been in place well before the establishment of the Park. Because of this, as well as its relative remoteness from vehicular access points, the value in adding Capehart to the rest of the Park, lies more in it's open space and habitat enhancing characteristics, rather than for direct human use as a hiking area.

I would propose that we designate the Capehart parcel a wildlife habitat zone, in which pedestrian traffic is restricted. Now most people's initial response to this is "you can't fence people out - it's a Park for pete's sake! We have to let people in there". But - take a look at the recent trails project completed a few years ago thanks to the hard work of the Friends of Discovery Park. That plan shows the the Park completely filled (and fragmented) with trails, both designated and non-designated. There is very little un-interrupted habitat-enhancing space available to wildlife. Similar discussions took place when the 9 acres of the 500 area became available. Should we encourage or discourage pedestrian traffic? How many trails versus forest versus meadow? These issues were discussed during the 3 public input and planning meetings that took place, at the direction of landscape architect Charles Anderson. In the end, the decision was made that because of its central location and proximity to the Visitors Center and the south parking lot, it should contain several trails, running primarily north-south with an open grass field in the center of the parcel and open forests in the north and south, taking advantage of the trees already on site. This decision was complex, and not without its opponents. In the end, compromises were made in several ways. But I think we ended up with a reasonably good outcome, given the very limited budget available to the process.

With Capehart we have the opportunity to pioneer a new and badly needed paradigm for Discovery Park. What makes the Park so unique and such an attractive place for Seattle citizens is its nature, its wildness, and its wildlife viewing potential. By establishing a precedent showing that we value untrammeled habitat, we inform visitors that Discovery Park values and protects habitat for the wildlife that call it home and is willing to discourage pedestrian traffic in some areas to promote this priority.

How would this be done? Fairly simply. I envision a non-threatening, voluntary demarcation barrier with simple signs stating that for habitat and wildlife purposes, this area is off limits to human or dog traffic. The barriers would be low and rustic - perhaps a split log type barrier. A few gates would be installed to allow restoration crew access.

By creating this zone, we could create a unique and very special area in the Park that would raise awareness of the ultimate purpose of the Park - to provide a refuge from our manmade environment.

BUILDING 653

Building 653 - what is it and why am I writing about it?

Building 653 is a squat single story yellow cinder block building which sits immediately east of the FAA tower, on the top of the hill. To my knowlege, it was built at the same time as the Nike building (see Nike building essay) and was designed to work with the Nike building in controlling the Nike Anti-Missile Ballistic system in place during the cold war.

Because the FAA complex is so intimidating, most Park visitors stay far away from it and think that the 653 parcel is part of the FAA complex and therefore also off limits. This is not true. The FAA complex is clearly demarcated by a 7-8 foot high fence topped with barb wire - prison camp style. The FAA parcel forms the shape of an "L" with building 653 sitting in the crook of that "L". More importantly, building 653 has a long wide driveway running to it from the access road behind (east) the historic officers homes. That driveway leads to a large paved parking lot immediately next to 653. All of this is City owned property and includes a wide swath of land just to the south of the FAA tower and just north of the south unit of the Officers homes. All this property is technically "park".

I've been inside 653 before. It appears to have been built primarily for 1950's era computer use, with many large trench like passageways running through and under most of the flooring. Extensive cooling ductwork runs through the building. There is very little useful interior space. It is not currently used and has not been used for several decades.

Building 653 is currently being considered for demolition under the WPCAC recommendations - a spending list regarding the roughly $5 million being transferred to the City from King County, which I've discussed in several different essays. This committee has the difficult task of recommending which projects take priorities over others, especially given that $2 million of the original $5 million in WPCAC funds will likely be used towards the $9 million the City has agreed to pay the Navy and American Eagle for the Capehart parcel (see essay - "the City/Navy deal".

So why is demolition of this building a priority? First and foremost, along with the driveway and parking lot associated with it, it occupies a significan portion of publicly owned land that the public cannot take advantage of. As can be stated about the Nike building and others, nothing can be done to improve these areas with buildings standing on them.

Secondly, the combination of 653, the FAA complex and the Nike building together form an imposing series of structures that effectively block public access from the Visitors Center to the top of the hill, forcing the public to take a more circuitous route. The recent addition of the 500 area has allowed the public to climb the long staircase from the Visitors Center to the 500 area renovation site, but the Nike site remains. With the Nike and 653 removed, the way is clear to discuss with the FAA some type of mitigation of the site and allow improved public access. I've discussed this in some detail in my FAA essay.

In fact, it's an interesting exercise to walk from the Visitors Center to the Nike building and try to figure out a way to get to the top of the hill. It's not easy. And 653 is one of the culprits. Removal of this building will go a long way in creating the type of Park that was originally conceived nearly 30 years ago. Here are a couple of views I took in 2005:

LIGHT POLLUTION IN DISCOVERY PARK

I doubt if you've ever noticed, but take the time sometime to walk Discovery Park after dark. You'll learn one thing. Discovery Park has a light problem. Too much of it. Everywhere. Just try to take a long exposure photograph in the Park after dark, like I recently did.

It's got me to thinking about what this Park stands for and what we want it to look like. If the primary purpose of the Park is to create a refuge from the City, where the enjoyment of nature is more important than that of manmade things, where habitat takes precedence over structures, what is the sense of lighting the whole place up like any other residential street in the city? Of course, I doubt this is the result of anyones specific planning. Rather, it's the heritage of Fort Lawton community that was once here. With thousands of military personel working and living on the base, the natural tendency was to light the place up like there was no tomorrow. As the military purpose has faded, so have the buildings and roads. But I believe we've forgotten one important manmade effect - artificial lights.

There's another consideration. Cost. By my count there are at least 20 sodium vapor streetlights in the Park that are not needed. A conservative estimate of the energy consumption of each of these lights is approximately $100/year. That's $2000 per year, at a minimum, to light areas in the Park that are not needed for public safety and clearly negatively impact the wildlife potential of the Park.

The ill-effect of night time, artificial light on wild animals and their habitat is well docmented. Many nocturnal animals and plants depend on a fixed intensity and amount of darkness to complete their life cycles. The presence of continual nighttime utility lighting disrupts these natural rhythms. And unless you're in the Park after dark (against the rules) you won't be aware of the problem. By day large areas of the Park seem natural and relatively wild. Nightime is another story.

There have been lots of documented research on the ill effects of light pollution. Several of the sites are listed at the end of this essay. They're worth reading.

I know the biggest concern is safety and security. And those are entirely legitimate. Important intersections need to be lit, and parking lots must be illuminated. But if you have a chance to drive through the Park at night, take note of the number of unshielded streetlights that are on, at locations that really don't need them. Also, consider the amount of electricity that is being consumed to light these areas. My proposal would be to agree to turn off the more obviously redundant lights for a trial period - say 6 - 12 months, and track the number of crimes or accidents that occur during that time. My guess is that no-one would notice the difference - and the Park, along with the plants and animals that call it home, would be the better for it.


Websites to learn more about light pollution:

http://www.amtsgym-sdbg.dk/as/sky.htm
http://www.aas.org/~light/pollution.html
http://www.monmouth.com/~ksears/litepol1.htm
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/nelpag.html
http://www.darksky.org/

THE FAA TOWER, WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS IT IN THE PARK?

As anyone who has taken a walk through the Parade Grounds knows, there is a very large white geodesic dome-like structure on top of an even larger steel girder tower, sited on the highest point of the Park, at the very center of the row of historic Officers Row. Weird - don't you think? In addition to the white antennae ball, several other utility buildings (cell phone tower and microwave receiver) are at the base of the tower. All of this is wrapped in a sinister and imposing chain link fence topped by barb wire. At night, the compound is ablaze with sodium vapor streetlights, and is visible throughout the Parks surrounding forests.

In the 50's as the Soviet nuclear threat became of greater and greater concern, the need for detecting foreign intrusions increased. An antennae farm was built on top of the hill at Fort Lawton, sporting not one, but three dome-like structures. These are evident on old aerial photographs from the era. The two older domes were demolished at some point, leaving only current "modern" dome.

Specifics after that have been harder to come by until recently, when I learned that the site is currently one of 20 such FAA sites in North America. Built in the 50's and 60's the FAA developed a system of upward facing high altitude radar to monitor high altitude (30,000 feet) across the country. Currently, they are aging rapidly with the federal government yet to make a decision as to whether to upgrade (at a cost of billions) or abandon in favor of a mandatory transponder system in all jet aircraft in constant communication via satellite to a central monitoring system. A much better, cheaper and effecient upgrade to the current 50's era technology. Reportedly opposed by the private aircraft industry as a privacy rights issue.

The FAA site is one of the last significant military-related "inholdings" within the Discovery Park ecosystem. If the abandon option should come (within 20 years?), Seattle citizens should be in a position to demand return of that land to the citizens for use as open space - i.e. integration into Discovery Park - giving us one of the finest viewpoints in the City and making The Park one of the last true great places.

THINKING OUT OF THE BOX - SALE OF THE HISTORIC HOMES

I was talking to one of the elder statesman of the Discovery Park community the other day and he mentioned an interesting idea.

Starting with the assumption that private ownership in a public park is bad, why not have a charitable conservation group take out a mortgage on all 26 historic homes, buy them from American Eagle/Navy, and rent them out to private individuals, and pay off the mortgage over 30 years time. That way, the City (or at least this civic minded conservation group) would own the property and could set all the groundrules regarding its use. At the end of 30 years, the mortgage gets paid off and the City owns the property free and clear, allowing the City the option to 1) continue renting them out, 2) tear them down, 3) allow them to be used as community centers, artists residences, or 4) whatever use we could accept as a community.

The only fly in this ointment is ............. the 10% down payment. Say American Eagle wants $15 million for all of the homes. This would require a $1.5 million cash down payment, with $13.5 million financed over 30 years.

I haven't decided yet on what I think of this scheme, but it's interesting and should be discussed. The concept of keeping public control of all of this land is very, very appealing. A group of hostile homeowners in the Park could be very difficult. On the other hand, there are several practical obstacles. First, the down payment. Don't know the exact amount, but I think it's a very good guess that it would be well over $1 million. Second, what entitly would be interested in and take responsibility for this. Various conservation groups do this for open space (see the Evergreen Forest concept), but I don't know of one that would take this on. Are there any "Historic Conservancies"? Thirdly, is the assumption that private homeowners in the Park are bad - valid? And lastly, does the City want to make this kind of commitment?

Time will tell.

DISCOVERY PARK IMAGES - ONLINE

In an effort to communicate better the challenges currently ongoing in the Park, I've decided to start posting images that will help explain these issues. Most DP enthusiasts visit the Park in a very habitual way - they walk the same loop, or visit the same places every day or week. It always surprises me how many areas of the Park remain unknown, even to folks who have walked in the Park for many years.

Thanks for your interest!

Aerial view of building 417 (Fort HQ) from the east looking west. The series of prefab buildings in the foreground are part of the Fort Hospital site, now a growing forest.

Another aerial from the Korean War days. Check out the rifle range at the site of todays north parking lot.

A view of the hospital site looking south. The large building in the right foreground was one of the original buildings at the Fort, the original hospital built in 1900.

The original hospital, top in 1900, bottom 1970 just prior to demolition

original hospital building 1900

Can you guess what this building is?

INITIAL THOUGHTS ON THE NAVY/CITY DEAL IN DISCOVERY PARK, SEATTLE WA Jan. 2005

BACKGROUND:

On December 21, 2004, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels announced a deal between the City of Seattle, American Eagle Communities, and the United States Navy, regarding the disposition of Navy-owned property within Discovery Park. American Eagle Communities had been selected by the Navy to act as the private partner mandated under a 1996 law (http://www.acq.osd.mil/housing/mhpi.htm ) that enabled the Navy to enter into PPVs (public-private ventures) to assist them in privatizing unwanted properties.

The deal is preliminary and represents a general outline of an agreement, with many details to be worked out in the near future. For those of you unfamiliar with the background leading up to this settlement, I suggest you read several excellent articles in the Seattle Times and others regarding it. A simple Google search on “Discovery Park” will provide lots of interesting reading.

The elements of the deal are as follows:

1) Once the military families currently living in the Capehart units have been found adequate housing elsewhere and vacated the Fort Lawton parcels, the Navy will demolish all above ground structures and give the 23 acre Capehart parcel to the City for use as Park space. Removal of remaining concrete slabs, pavement and other infrastructure will be up to the City to remove. This will allow the City to take ownership of a parcel that will be safe for public access, without the need to fence it off.

2) Navy, through its partner, American Eagle will sell or long term lease the 26 historic homes (after they have been similarly vacated) within the historic district to private individuals with the proceeds to be used for construction or purchase of enlisted family housing in the Everett area. The buildings will remain historic and subject to historic covenants. No additional buildings will be allowed. Rules pertaining to the occupants of those homes and how they co-exist within a public park are to be negotiated.

3) City will pay the Navy $9 million at a date to be determined. City has committed $2 million of it's own West Point Settlement Fund (WPCAC), towards the total, with the balance of $7 million to be raised from Federal, State and County sources.

Here's an image of the Capehart area:
http://www.pbase.com/pvogelzang/image/38255875
Here's an image of a historic home in Officers Row:
http://www.pbase.com/pvogelzang/image/38255897.jpg
Here's an image of a historic home in Montana Circle:
http://www.pbase.com/pvogelzang/image/38255889.jpg

COMMENT:

First and foremost, recognition must go to the many military families who currently or previously have called Discovery Park home. The tradition of military housing in Discovery Park goes back decades, and the citizens of Seattle have shared the beauty of Discovery Park with these families and been the better for it. It's certainly my hope that this deal will give them higher quality, more comfortable housing than they've had previously, and closer to their place of work. They have been outstanding stewards of this public space and they deserve everyone’s thanks and well wishes

The Upsides:

Very few, I believe, would argue this is not a good compromise deal for everyone. One - the Navy and American Eagle walk away from a potentially difficult political fight with a nice sum of cash and the good graces of Seattle. I'm not a real estate expert but the sale of 26 well-maintained, classic turn-of-the-century homes in the middle of Seattle's largest green space is unprecedented, and will attract lots of attention. Depending on the quality of work American Eagle puts into the renovation and modernization process, some of the homes on Officers Row may sell for over $1 million, with those on Montana Circle probably selling for over $500k. Multiply that by 26 units! Added to the $9 million from the City, this deal stands to bring to the Navy a large amount of cash from its Fort Lawton holdings to build housing in Everett.

Two, the City and its citizens gain title to a parcel that arguably does more to fragment and weaken the biodiversity of Discovery Park than any other. Although the restoration process will be long and perhaps difficult, ownership of this critical 25 acres is crucial if the City ever wants to really manage Discovery Park and its ecosystem as a “whole”. The Capehart parcel is isolated from the rest of Park buildings and pavement and is surrounded by fairly healthy meadows and forests. Unlike the historical homes, Capehart is located distant from the Park perimeter and central to its forests and meadows. Just the daily number of vehicles driven to these homes every day adds considerably to the vehicular traffic load within the Park.

And three - the politics. Budget hawks in Congress and elsewhere are bound to look carefully at this deal. Transfer of 25 acres of federal land to the City will attract lots of attention. The revenue generated (perhaps as much as $30 million) for use in acquiring military housing in Everett will dispel any notion of special pork barrel deals.

The Downsides:

So what are the downsides? In the few public discussions I’ve been involved with so far, I’ve heard several.

First, this is the property that was sold to the federal government for a miniscule amount of money from the citizens of the City of Seattle over 100 years ago. They’ve had full use of it for those 100 years and it’s time they return it to the City free of charge. In a similar vein, this is property is owned by “the public” so the public should not be charged with the burden of purchasing it again.

Secondly, we'll have private homeowners residing in the Park, which will forgo any chance at removing some or any of them in the future. It also sets a dangerous precedent of private ownership in a public park, with all the problems that follow. These buildings could just as easily be converted to public use, like community centers or artist residences.

Thirdly, we have to give up a significant portion of the Westpoint Settlement Fund (see my WPCAC posting) the City will be receiving from King County. This money (nearly $5 million) is legally bound to be spent on habitat improvement in Discovery Park and the loss of $2 million of these funds is significant.

Finally, the City will be receiving yet another "property" that will look more like discarded military detritus (23 acres of concrete slabs and roads leading to nowhere) than a public park.

My responses to those concerns are as follows:

First – the “return it because it belongs to us” argument. Sorry, but our system of government doesn’t work like that. The Department of Defense represents a distinct branch of our federal government that is empowered to act in its own interest and for the benefit of its own employees. Although there is a certain logic to this argument, the existing laws do not reflect or support it. Distinct branches of our government are allowed to hold title to the property and may use it as they wish, subject to local and federal laws. The Navy/DOD purchased that property many years before Discovery Park was established and they are entitled to use it as they see fit. As long as existing laws are obeyed.

Second - the private homeowner's argument. Critics would say this is selling off a public legacy. Rich people who can afford it, get to live historic homes, insulated from the intrusions of the city. The rest of us poor blokes have to live in plain old residential areas. Well, I say get over it. Welcome to the new reality of America at War and all answers come from the private sector. Any way you cut it, these homes were going to have to be "privatized". If the City had taken them over, maintenance costs would have rapidly forced them into revenue generating mode. Artist communities and community centers don't generate much cash, and does Magnolia really need 26 community centers or artist communities? No, the private market would have been used in some way, only I suspect the City's method would have been a lot messier and more expensive with a much greater impact on the Park.

And why is the presence of private families living in the Park so offensive? We've had essentially the same situation in the Park for the past 30 years, except those families have had a member in the military. No other difference. I think the track record they've established will hold. Those individuals who have the privilege to live in the Park will understand that and will treat it as such. And they will contribute to the overall number of the Discovery Park advocacy community at large. But because of their long-term presence in the park, they’ll have a real stake in the Park and its welfare and be motivated to advocate for its protection.

Conclusion: I’ve found that any significant change that happens in Discovery Park is accompanied by a great deal of hand-wringing and naysaying. This is inevitable and to be expected when dealing with such a treasured and widely shared resource. Any change on this scale contains risk. But in addition to that risk, huge opportunities are presenting themselves. Lots of public input will be sought on the implementation of the process. And if we citizen-advocates provide constructive input to this process, and fulfill our responsibilities by attending meetings and getting involved in a Discovery Park advocacy groups, a better, healthier, more bio-diverse Park will be the result.

So make a point of attending the next Discovery Park Advisory Council, Friends of Discovery Park or Magnolia Community Club meeting. I can assure you these issues will be passionately discussed. And you too can have your say regarding the future of Discovery Park.

PJV - January 2005

WPCAC (WEST POINT SETTLEMENT) FUNDS

The West Point Citizens Advisory Council was convened by King County Councilmember Larry Phillips in 2002 to discuss appropriate ways to spend nearly $5 million of King County funds that had accumulated in an escrow account that was set up as the result of a legal settlement in the early 1990s. 5 different advocacy groups had petitioned King County over the construction of the County’s West Point Wastewater Treatment Facility. The issue was the presence of 3 digesters that were located on property within Discovery Park and owned by the City. The Settlement Agreement called for the deposit of $1 million into an escrow for each acre of property. The County was given until 2010 to find an acceptable technological alternative for the digesters, or pay the City for the acreage used. Since 3 acres were involved, $3 million was deposited and held. By 2002, the County had decided that no alternative was going to be available, and hence, decided to begin the process of the transfer of funds.

The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the funds be used for the betterment of Discovery Park. Larry Phillips formed the West Point Citizens Advisory Council from a group of citizens named to represent the 5 advocacy groups. These were 1) the Friends of Discovery Park, 2) the Washington Environmental Council, 3) the Magnolia Community Club, 4) Puget Sound Water Quality Defense Fund and 5) Legal Advocates for Washington.

The Council met from mid 2002 through mid 2003, with a final Recommended Project List produced in June of 2003. Here is the list:

1 – Greater 500 area - $1 million
2 - Building 653 demolition - $250k
3 – Chapel demolition - $250k
4 – Nike building demolition - $1 million
5 – Historic District work - $100k
6 – North Forest Road removal - $350k
7 – North Meadow restoration - $50k
8 – Bird Alley restoration - $50k
9 – Rhododendron Glen restoration - $50k
10 – Visitors Center habitat enhancement - $250k
11 – maintenance tractor replacement - $150k
12 – Endowment fund - $500k
13 – Contingency fund - $800k

Possible uses for the contingency fund (#13) were to include renovation of the lighthouse buildings, wetland improvement or creation, Schuerman Creek restoration and North Bluff Restroom upgrade.

This list of recommendations was presented to the Board of Park Commissioners in Sept 2003. Public comments were received. They voted to make some changes to the list. First, the Chapel and Annex demolition was deferred with the $250k initially budgeted for that project transferred to the Contingency Fund. Second, they recommended to specify $600k from te Contigency fund to the Lighthouse restoration. The Board of Park Commissioners made these recommendations to Superintendent Ken Bounds, who in turn made his recommendations to the Mayor.

As of January 2005, use of the WPCAC funds has been tabled because of the agreement reached between the City and the Navy over the Capehart parcel and the historic housing units. I’ve detailed that issue in another posting. Briefly, the City has proposed that $2 million of the WPCAC funds be used towards the $9 million total the City has committed to pay the Navy as part of the agreement to obtain the Capehart parcel. The balance will be raised from federal, state and county sources. Obviously, the loss of $2 million will dramatically change the listing above. Larry Phillips will be re-convening the Council in the near future to work up a new project list. Which projects will stay and which will be dumped? Stay tuned.

THE NIKE BUILDING

The Nike Building (referred from here on as “Nike”) is a structure that has been in the news lately. I’d like to provide some background information on it.

Nike was constructed sometime in the 1950’s as a command and control site for the Nike anti-ballistic missile systems that were being installed throughout the Puget Sound and elsewhere. Attempts were made to locate ABM missiles in Fort Lawton, but thanks to efforts by Senator Henry M. Jackson, these were unsuccessful.

It is made of reinforced concrete and relatively bombproof. Others are much more expert than I on the details of the Nike system, but the basic outline is that the control structure, not the actual missiles, was located in Fort Lawton. The Nike building held the computers that controlled the actual missiles, which were located at more remote sites throughout the region. Bob Kildall had written extensively about this. The City took ownership of this building when the Federal government gave the initial property to the City that became Discovery Park. The City began to use it as a convenient place to store unwanted materials. Over the years, it evolved into a storage site, including an outside storage yard for a wide range of left over construction material, and an indoor storage site for One Reel Productions, producer of the City’s popular Bumbershoot Festival at the Seattle Center.

Here's a link to a photo of the front entrance: http://www.pbase.com/pvogelzang/image/38231463.jpg

Here's a link to a photo of the storage yard:
http://www.pbase.com/pvogelzang/image/38231461.jpg

Nike is located in an area of the Park few citizens ventured. Located on the easterly slope of the hilltop containing the historic Officers Row housing and surrounded on the east by the fenced off Army Reserve’s 500 area (see my posting # ….), Nike remained a very inconspicuous and little known structure until the late 1990’s when the Army Reserve vacated the 500 area, tore down the 24 barrack buildings standing on the site and removed the barbed wire perimeter fence. Suddenly, park users were venturing into an area they hadn’t had access to before and began noticing a large, squat building built into the side of the hill and began asking the reason for it’s presence in the middle of a Park.

The Discovery Park Advisory Council (DPAC) recognized the need for Nike building removal once it began work on the adjacent 500 Area restoration project in 2000, and began to lobby Seattle Parks to vacate and demolish it, to further extend the benefit gained by return of the 500 area. No money was available for such a project, so the idea was tabled until 2002, when Larry Phillips, King County Councilmember opened hearings on the use of settlement funds from King County for County digesters located on City property in DP. He convened a group of citizens (myself included) to come up with a list of projects within the Park that would be funded by this money. When it became clear that Nike demolition was high on everyone’s list, Ken Bounds, superintendent of Seattle Parks supported the idea of demolition of Nike, estimated at a cost of approximately $1 million. The first steps have been taking by One Reel removing its materials around the summer of 2004, with only City material remaining. Currently, Nike is partially vacated and is awaiting a final decision regarding the release of WPCAC money. See my other posts regarding the WPCAC process.

Parenthetically, the Nike became caught up in the chapel demolition controversy in November 2004, when it was reviewed for possible historical status (along with the chapel). It was found to be not historic.

So next time you take a walk in DP, make a point of finding the Nike building, and imagine what it will be like once it’s demolished. It may be happening very soon.

AAA PRINCIPLES, GUIDELINES AND PRACTICES

NOTE: this essay was originally written by Seattle Parks staff member Peter Holte about 5 years ago. Myself and Tom Palm are currently editing and updating it. This is our latest edition. It is very long. Don't try to print it! We're posting this because we feel it represents a useful reference article for anyone interested in the rational and strategy behind current restoration efforts in Discovery Park.


PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This document sets out the principles, objectives and guidelines for Discovery Park’s Adopt-An-Area program until a more formalized set of objectives can be drafted via a public process. As such its purpose is twofold. First, this document acts as a source of information for future land managers and current and future volunteers. Second, it clarifies and puts into writing many of the principles, guidelines, practices, and policies that until have been expressed only informally.

Use of this document should be tempered with the acknowledgement that it has not undergone the scrutiny of a public process, nor has it undergone peer review. It summarizes our current practices, and puts into writing the current goals of our restoration efforts. As our restoration effort evolves and changes, through a process of adaptive management, these changes will made as addendum so that this work will contain not only current information, but a history what has come before.

Though this document spends a good deal of time discussing invasive plants, it does so only because these plants inhibit the creation of a habitat that can support a wider array of species within the Park’s landscape. Indeed, in the portion of this document concerning goals, the reader will notice that much of what is discussed is our desired outcome. In this discussion we try to avoid defining what we do not want, and instead, attempt to explain what we hope to accomplish. For example, rather than stating we wish to limit the fragmentation of the Park, we instead hope into increase connectivity of like habitats. This distinction is important because it take focus away from invasives and our need to control them, and instead, places our focus on what landscape we hope to create, how we can justify creating such a landscape; and what tasks we need to accomplish to meet this goal.

DISCOVERY PARK: AN URBAN WILDERNESS WITH IT OWN UNIQUE HABITAT PATTERNS
Discovery Park encompasses approximately 760 acres, but the City of Seattle manages 534 acres this area. The difference is made up of in-holdings managed by the U. S. Navy, the United Indians of All Tribes, the U.S. Coast Guard, the FAA and King County.

The park was created to become an “urban wilderness” in 1972. This unique classification makes it unlike other parks in Seattle. As we attempt to increase habitat within the park, we need to keep this unique character in mind. We will never be able to return the region or landscape in the park to what it once was; the ancient forests that were once here were their own unique ecological systems, originating at a time with when the Northwests climate was much different than it is today. Instead of trying to restore what was once here, we are instead trying to acknowledge a history that is reflected in the landscape and build a new landscape that is both ascetically interesting and a viable refuge for native plants and animals.

LANDSCAPE HISTORY
At the time of settlement by Europeans, the Magnolia Bluff was largely a late successional coniferous forest that had existed in this configuration from anywhere between 200 and 500 years. These forests contain patches of ancient forest, but also encompassed young stands and middle aged stands. Combined and placed within the context of the region, to which it is part, the bluff most likely looked something like an old blanket with a number of patches on it. The blanket itself was made up of forests dominated by numerous long lived tree species such as old growth douglas fir, western red cedar, grand fir, sitka spruce, and mountain hemlock. The patches on the blanket made up of open meadows, wetlands, alder, young Douglas fir, and big leaf maple groves. This blanket and its patches, however, overtime switched places. Younger forest stands matured and faded into the blanket. Older forest stands underwent the same form of disturbance, regenerated, and then stood out as patches. Ecologists call this pattern of continually small shifting patches of differing habitats in a more or less continuous blanket of like habitat a “sifting mosaic.”

It is likely that the Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest did alter this mosaic through management practices. Their actions likely influenced the quantity of individual species, and in some cases, also altered the structure of entire ecological systems (Boyd 1986). But even though it is not known the extent to which Native American practices changed the land, their management is not thought to have greatly influenced habitat pattern in what is now western Washington. And moreover, the land management used by Native Americans had much less effect than those settlers of European decent would later bring (Norse 1990, Agee 1998).

The Europeans who settled the West Point’s bluffs brought with them a great amount of change. Some settlers logged the old growth forest for profit. Others simply cleared the land to plant crops. In 1880, the 13 individual landowners gave the federal government 760 acres near the West Point bluff and the government created Fort Lawton.

With the creation of the fort, came considerable change to the areas landscape. The army erected buildings, built roads, created an infrastructure of pipes and wires, built housing for Army families, and continued removing old growth forests. When the Fort was decommissioned and the land turned over to the City of Seattle in 1972, much of the army’s infrastructure was removed, though portions of it still remain. In summary, the area called Discovery Park has “evolved” from ancient forest to military base to “urban wilderness.”

This history of land use can be found in the current landscape. The lumberjacks and the U.S. military altered the composition of trees species. By logging and not replanting, they increased the number of mature alder stands and big leaf maples found in the park. In addition, the military altered the types of habitat found in the park by creating large open spaces that were once coniferous forests, including the north bluff and the south meadow.

As result, rather than looking like the blanket described above, the park instead looks more like a giant quilt. In other words, rather than a more or less continuous blanket with patches on it, the park is instead a blanket created entirely of patches. Portions of the loop trail near the horse patrol for example, look much like other mid-aged mixed conifer forests found throughout the Pacific Northwest. Other areas are dominated by invasives and seem to be in a much more simple “steady state”—a state in which one or few plants dominate an area. These areas show a comparatively low complement of species, and a great resistance to change (May 1975). Still other areas, such as the old big leaf maple stands near the beginning of the Hidden Valley Trail, are unlike forests found elsewhere, but nonetheless display a degree of complexity.

HOW LANDSCAPE PATTERNS EFFECT WILDLIFE – ISLAND BIOGEOGRAPHY THEORY AND THE EDGE EFFECT

In a general sense, the unique patterns found in the park can create a number of effects on native plants and animals that live there, but here I briefly discuss only two. The first effect is called the “Island Biogeography Theory” (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Harris 1984). The second is the called the “Edge effect.”

“Island Biology Theory” greatly simplified, states that smaller more isolated landmasses have a lower rate of immigration and therefore higher rates of localized extinction. A lack of immigration route in a fragmented and isolated habitat means that certain species will have a limited genetic base with which to work. Over time species might inbreed, eventually losing their ability to reproduce, and finally go extinct (Shaffer 1981).

Habitat isolation occurs for two reasons: 1) because a landmass is surrounded by water; or 2) because our land use practices separate the habitat from other like masses of like habitat (Harris 1984). In a terrestrial setting, habitat fragmentation has been particularly hard on certain species, and less harsh—and even beneficial—to other species. Species such giant salamanders, red voles, spotted owls, and northern flying squirrels, for example, all evolved to live in a landscape dominated by late successional forests and cannot function in highly fragmented forest landscapes. Other animals such as rats, raccoons, Roosevelt Elk, and cowbirds, may actually benefit from fragmentation because they can thrive in a wider range of habitats or else thrive in disturbed sites.

Applying this theory to Discovery Park, the park appears as an isolated habitat (a habitat island), surrounded by an “ocean” of urban development. Kwanis Ravine to the park’s northeast and the railroad tracks to the north act as the sole potential corridor for more specialized, non-flying wildlife to immigrate into park. But further, Fort Lawton’s elaborate road system breaks the park’s habitat into smaller discontinuous sections, isolating habitat patches within the park from one another. As a result, we have a large piece of land placed in a sea of houses and development; and within that piece of land we have a series of smaller and less isolated, but nonetheless fragmented habitats. This brings us to the second effect.

EDGE EFFECT: An “edge effect” alters a habitat’s character by creating an abrupt edge between areas of different character (Murcia 1995, Yahner 1988). Roads within the park create drastic and abrupt differences between the forested areas and the pavement that adjoin them. The forest induces a cooler, moister environment and maintains more uniform, stable temperate variations. The open areas and pavement induce warmer, dryer conditions and greater fluctuations in temperature. Difference in the amount of light, air moisture content, and soil create mirco-climates on both sides of the edge. This promotes the growth of some plants and inhibits the growth of others. Likewise, some animals thrive in these altered areas while others recede from it. This ultimately results in an effected area (an edge) that displays its own habitat characteristics.

A certain amount of “edginess” in a habitat is a good thing. It promotes diversity by creating a set of conditions that benefits certain species. Too much edge, however, can be problematic. Discovery Park has a great number of edges and because the park is already somewhat fragmented, the edge effect further reduces the amount of space for species that require a specialized habitat.

At this time we do not know to what extent the many edges in the park effect its wildlife. We know they have some effect. Song sparrows and other birds, for instance, are effected because the edge promotes of presence of cowbirds and starlings. Cowbirds are particularly interesting because they are brood parasites, meaning they lay their eggs in the nest of other birds and let “foster” parents raise their young. Once hatched the cowbirds, because they are more aggressive than their “foster” siblings, out compete their siblings for the food supplied by the “foster” parents.

Moreover, the edges create pathways for invasive plants to enter the park. Edges often supply invasive plants with just the set of conditions they need to become established. Hence at the edges in the park, we find a great deal of Himalayan blackberry, Scot’s broom, herb Robert, and other invasive plants.

The combination of these effects makes it very difficult for certain native species to thrive within the park. Certain animals found in the area will probably never make a return. But, if we want to keep the species we now have and at some point see the return of others, we need to minimize these effects.

Ideally, we should:
1) connect like habitats creating larger continuous segments of habitat with in the park;
2) control the influence of invasive plants and opportunistic animals;
3) reduce the amount of edge in the park.

Such actions will move the park’s landscape away from being a fragmented habitat island, and move it towards becoming a somewhat independently functioning “urban wilderness”.

PLANTS, ANIMALS AND HABITAT TYPES
Those that know the park know that despite all the challenges it faces, and despite the altered nature of its landscape patterns, the park provides habitat for a number of plants and animals. In a general sense we can divide the parks habitat types into four large categories: forest, meadow, ponds, and beach. All of the forests, however, are not the same and can be divided into smaller habitat types. The same can be said for each of the other habitats. A recent nature-mapping project by the Seattle Habitat Project (figure) clearly illustrates this.

In some cases we have done a good job monitoring the plants and animals found in the park. We have for example, a lot of information about bird sightings in the park. We could and should, however, do a better job of monitoring other animals that reside here. For instance, we could do a better job looking at salamanders, frogs, and rodents. The problem here, however, is how to look for and count these animals in way that is both systematic and at the same time gentle and non-disruptive. A list of animals found in the park can be found in the appendix A. Bird lists, native plant lists, and wildlife lists can also all be obtained at the visitor center’s front desk.

GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND SHORT-TERM GUIDES TO ADOPT-AN-AREA ACTIONS
The unique character of the park requires an equally unique management strategy; one that accounts for its urban nature, yet also acknowledges the ecological processes found in an area larger than the typical urban open space. The park’s Master plan guides what we can and cannot do in the park. Many of the specifics concerning land management within the park, however, have yet to be worked out. A Reforestation-Habitat Restoration Plan is now in the works and will hopefully work these details out.

In the Adopt-An-Area program we have worked with a set of informal goals that have done a fair job of acknowledging the parks unique character and also consistent with the park’s Master Plan. The following summarizes these, until now, informal goals that have guided our actions.

GOALS
Our actions are driven by six goals:
1) to increase citizen stewardship of the park;
2) to control invasive plant species;
3) to increase native plant diversity;.
4) to increase potential habitat for wildlife;
5) to increase the beauty of the park;
6) to educate the public regarding biological diversity within the park; and
7) to minimize the need to actively manage park habitat.

OBJECTIVES
We have not as yet created objectives for our restoration projects. As mentioned, however, the park is currently beginning this process. The objectives defined in our planning process will not be exactly the same as those we set for the Adopt-An-Area. The two sets will at times over lap. Two sets also should compliment one another, and if they do not, something is amiss.

Future objectives will likely include our in need to:
*Match volunteers within areas of the park to act as long term land stewards
*Work within a planning process to:
Identify what type of vegetative communities we wish to have in various area of the park;
Formulate a schedule for such a process;
Find the appropriate levels of management (intensive, moderate or monitoring) needed in various areas of the park; and
Clarify the roles of the grounds crews and AAA volunteers
*Maintain a monitoring program that records the presence of rare plants, animals, and fungi
*Develop a monitoring program that will allow volunteers to learn from mistakes and successes (i.e. implementing adaptive management.)
*Use the AAA program as an opportunity to educate by:
Providing youth groups and school groups an opportunity for service learning;
Providing our volunteers with the materials and training they desire; and
Using AAA events as an opportunity to educate the public about our restoration events.
*Increase connectivity among like habitats by removing invasive plants and planting natives
*Increase structures within habitat communities that will increase native diversity
*Reduce the Park’s isolation by encouraging people outside the park to use wildlife friendly landscaping practices
*Recognize and honor the work completed by Adopt-An-Volunteers

The above list is of course preliminary and will change as the Reforestation-Habitat Restoration Plan unfolds and with further input from Adopt-An-Area volunteers. These objectives also can be written more concisely and concretely for specific areas of the park. For example, at some future point the objective, “Increase structure in habitat communities that will increase native diversity,” can and should be written with much a more much more specific intention specific to a particular habitat. In this instance a more specific objective of the forest might be: “Increase course woody debris loads to 15% of the total area of forested area to provide habitat for micro-fauna;” or “Create a multi-layer canopy consisting of ground cover, forbes, shrubs, sub-canopy trees, and dominant canopy trees.” These specifics are to come later as the planning process unfolds. But to bridge the gap until we can formally finalize goal and objectives, the following briefly discusses some of the issues that we now face and must make decisions about will until such time as a forest plan arrives.



SHORT TERM GUIDES FOR ADOPT-AN-AREA ACTIONS
Addressing the need to determine the location of habitat communities
To date we worked under the assumption that the North and South Meadows will remain an open area, but that tree planting could take place in much of the other areas of the Park. Indeed, realizing that trees provide habitat and also help control Scot’s broom and black berry, we have planted tree open areas as a method of control. At this point in time is it very important that we take a step back from this practice. We need to stop placing trees into open areas until we hold a public forum that allows what we want to do with open areas that are currently dominated by invasive plants. This is a public park and land changes in it require public input.

Ecological processes and land management decisions both take place at various spatial scales. In our case, one scale can encompass the entire Park; another scale can encompass smaller portion habitats within it. At larger scales we will decide if an area is to remain an open meadow, a forest, or something else (i.e. a butterfly and hummingbird demonstration garden, a nature-scaping garden, work location for storing soil, compost and plants, etc.). And yet at still smaller scales we will decide how to create elements in a habitat that foster a greater compliment of native plants and animals.

It seems very unlikely that existing broad scale habitats will be greatly altered by future plans. The meadow will remain open. The forest will remain forest. With that in mind, our present guideline limits actions that will results in large-scale change and instead promotes the small-scale changes. Actions consistent with this guideline includes: maintaining existing planting, and removing or planting in a manner that will not change one vegetative community into an altogether different type. It does not mean that we need to stop removing invasives in areas that have already been replanted, or in areas where the removal will not radically alter the habitat type—for example, removing ivy and holly in a forest. It does mean, however, that we need to stop removing invasives and replanting with trees in open areas as a method to control invasives until we have undergone a public process and a more rigorous biological assessment.

We will work at smaller scales to increase the ability of an area to act as habitat. This is done by creating a multi-layered canopy in the forest, by increasing diversity within habitat islands in the meadow, and by creating cover in and near wetlands

In the forested areas of the park where native propagation does seem to occurring at levels we desire, we should, for example, plant shade tolerant trees such as western red cedar, western hemlock, Pacific yew, dogwood, and vine maple. Additionally where necessary we should also clear smaller areas of invasive native plants (i.e. wild black berry near health path trail), and plant sub-canopy species and forbes. In the meadow, we should plant thickets (i.e. Nootka rose and snowberry) that can provide shelter birds and rodents species as we remove blackberry.

Ascetic Considerations
We need to consider two levels of ascetic considerations. First, we should attempt to make our restoration sites reasonably clean. Second, should think about where we are planting flowering plants and other plants that are considered to have an ascetic appeal.

We will take reasonable efforts to place burlap sacks and mulch piles in places where they are less visible to the public. Admittedly sometimes this will be easily done, while other times the work required will not be worth the effort. This also mean we will attempt to find centralized locations to place piles of removed invasive so that they can be quickly taken from the Park.
Education
We will continue to use free walks as an opportunity to education people about our restoration efforts. We can also use work parties as a chance to educate people. Additionally, the AAA program has been used as an opportunity to provide service learning for youth, and this should be continued. Eventually it would be wonderful to extend this program and create a more systematic approach to service learning. This approach would integrate a service learning program with other educational programs offered at the park--oh but for the time to do such things.

Determining the Degree of Management
Some areas will require yearly, or even bi-yearly ongoing intensive management. Even without determining the type of community we would like in various areas, we can still acknowledge that some areas need more or less attention than others. The meadow, for example, will require intensive management to keep the broom and blackberry out. We will pull broom out as it sprouts up, and we will most likely have to do this for the next 80 years (unless we again try to use bio-soil) - see the Shoreline Improvement Funds Report, 1986. We will also likely have to continue mowing once a year in certain areas to control invasives (see mowing map, in the files under maps). We should also attempt to decide who and how we will manage areas that need intensive management. Will the grounds crew take responsibility for certain areas?

Other areas will require less management. Areas infested by laurel and holly need less management. After the holly and laurel roots has been killed or removed we need to maintain monitoring. Likewise, in certain areas (i.e. the health path area) we also need to check on the status of trees planted in amongst the wild blackberry to make sure that they can overcome this aggressive native.

Ideally some areas at some will only need monitoring to make sure that natural propagation occurs at the desired levels, that the forest is developing a multi-layer structure we desire, and that invasive are not making their way in. There are areas near this state in the park (i.e. the loop trail near the horse barns), but even these areas—at this point—still need invasives removed and sub-canopy trees planted.

Finding ways to obtain or propagate native plants
The increase in the use of native plants by the Department of Parks and Recreation has created the need to search for new was to obtain native plants. With this in mind we have to start applying for grants to obtain these plants, and also look propagate our own native plants. This means we will have into work at making a better-stocked nursery and volunteers to run it. Currently we are working a Ballard High School teacher to develop a propagation program that will use high school student to grow seedlings and also teach other to grow seedlings.

CHALLENGES WE FACE WHEN TRYINGTO MEET OUR GOALS: INVASIVES AND CURRENT USE PATTERNS
In order to implement the goals above we will have to meet many challenges. The previous discusses some of the challenges that our restoration project face, but does so in a somewhat abstract manner. The way these challenges manifest, however, can be much more concrete (pun intended). In some cases, this means we will have to respond to situations that have already arisen. In other cases, we need to act so that we do not find ourselves continually attempting to work with a landscape whose patterns foster the creation of future problems. Actions that fall into the first category include such things as the removal and/or control of invasive plants, and maintaining the area already re-planted. Action that falls into the later category included such things as removing roads and helping forest to continue through a more or less expected successional course.

INVASIVE PLANTS
Invasive plants are plants which aggressively take over an areas in such a manner that, if left unchecked, would not allow to us to increase native plant diversity or provide wildlife habitat for a larger compliment of species. If left unchecked, these plants tend to create biologically less diverse habitats that show great resistant to change (a steady state habitat).

The fact that many invasive plants do well in disturbed areas causes particular problems for us here at the park because: 1) we work in an area that has been greatly altered by human actions, and 2) we want to accept and accommodate change as it occurs naturally. This second point can be very difficult, and as the wise former Adopt-an-Area coordinator, Julie Luthy, once pointed out, “the successional patterns in Discovery Park all seem to end in blackberry and Scot’s broom” (personal communications 1999.)

As a result, we have to be persistent, adaptive, and inventive if we are going to maintain a landscape that is ascetically interesting and biological diverse. This means we will have to find different techniques for different invasive plants and different techniques for the same invasive plant when it is found in different settings.

General thoughts about removing invasive plant
The first rule of removing invasive plants is patience. The second rule is persistence. It will take us a great long while to control invasive plants here at the park; on the order of decades rather than years. With this in mind, it is important to remember that we need to act at a pace that matches our abilities and matches the biological need of plants and animals in the park. We want to remove invasive plants, replant, and then care for the restoration site until such time as it can function alone or until we reach a place where an area requires only an anticipated amount of maintenance.

The Nature Conservancy suggests using the Bradley Technique as one way of creating such a pace. This method will not work in all areas of the park, but will work good many areas:

This method consists of hand weeding selected small areas of infestation in a specific sequence, starting with the best stands of native vegetation (those with the least extent of weed infestation) and working towards those stands with the worst weed infestation. Initially, weeds that occur singly or in small groups should be eliminated from the extreme edges of the infestation. The next areas to work on are those with a ratio of at least two natives to every weed. As the native plants stabilize in each cleared nature area, work deeper into the center of the most dense weed patches. This method has great promise on nature reserves with low budgets and sensitive plant populations (The Nature Conservancy 1998).

As with most things in ecology, restoration does not tend to fit into “one size fits all categories.” The third rule (definitely not the last rule) of removing invasive plants is flexibility. Ecological systems are complex and the conditions that allow invasive plants to take over an area huge in number. We need to remain flexible and we need to learn from our mistakes. We want to monitor our actions—something we greatly need to work on—and act with a great amount of humility (Franklin et al. 1988, Botkin 1990, Maser 1992). When taking restorative actions, it is probably best to work from the assumptions that:

1) we cannot know everything about complex ecological systems;
2) we probably harbor unconscious assumptions about how and why complex ecology systems function;
3) our actions may result in unexpected results;
4) we will need to monitor the consequences of our actions to see how they change and develop over time; and
5) we will need to adapt our techniques to meet changing circumstances.

Sharing information is an essential part of this flexibility. There is not a large body of information telling us how to deal with invasive plants. I feel we have done a fairly good job of doing of sharing information in the Adopt-An-Area program. I often learn from the volunteers who have noticed something as they work in the field, and often shared things that I have learned from a variety of sources. We need to continue to share information and to find ways to better share information.

Exotic Invasive Plants
These aliens are not from out space, they come from other places on this planet. But like the fictional aliens from outer space, these plants will “conquer” the park (and maybe even the planet) should we let them. Additionally, some plants should be removed as a priority. Some should be steadily removed, and others removed as less priority. Here, letters designate to which category these plants belong: (P1)= first priority, remove immediately (P2) = second priority, remove steadily and (P3) = third priority, remove as time and ability allow. The King County Noxious Weed Listing can greatly aid in determining what priority we should give these alien invaders.




Himalayan Blackberry (P2)
Thus far only two factors seem common to the success of controlling Himalayan blackberry: 1) volunteer’s persistence and patience and 2) a mature coniferous forest canopy that limits the available light. Examples of successes do exist, but even in these cases to declare total victory would be a mistake.

The Nature Conservancy (1998) divides methods for controlling blackberries and other invasive plants into three categories: biological controls, chemical control, and mechanical control. Biological control for blackberries cannot legally be used in the U.S. because the use of an imported insects or disease would likely effect commercial berry plants and other close relatives.

Chemical control is controversial, but has shown some effective results. Broadcast spraying with Roundup (glyphosate), 2,4,5-T, and other herbicides seems ineffective. While this method kills the plant above ground, it leaves the root intact and the plant will simply re-sprout from the root. Painting individual stems with Roundup or other herbicides 5 to 10 minutes after they are cut has proved successful, as has injecting blackberry with variety of herbicides (The Nature Conservancy 1998.)

Mechanical techniques include mowing, clipping, digging out roots, or using domesticate animals to physically remove blackberry. This is not an easy process and has provided mixed results. The berry’s unique physiology combined with the energy it requires to machanically control blackberries has led us to a dilemma that we at the park jokingly term, “the blackberry conundrum.” Blackberries produce great numbers of seeds that readily sprout in disturbed areas. They also grow bulbous roots containing a great deal of starch and readily re-sprout. Hence the conundrum: do we dig out the roots thus creating more disturbances, or do we allow the root to remain and allow it to re-sprout?

The amount of energy needed to control blackberry by mechanical means plays into this dilemma. Letting the bulbous root remain requires less time in the short term, but will require volunteers to return continually. Removing the root initially takes more time and will still require volunteers to return to remove young plants that have grown in the newly disturbed area.

Currently in the park we use mechanical methods to remove blackberries. To get around the “blackberry conundrum” a middle ground might prove best. Remove the bulbous portion of the roots and leave smaller roots. This method will still require continuous removals within an area, but hopefully will require less than had we removed none of the roots. This entails a smaller degree of disturbance, but seedling and re-sprouting plants will likely be smaller and weaker than those that would re-sprout from a bulbous root.

Begin by clipping or mowing the blackberries as low as possible near the root. The clipping can then be flattened and compacted by foot, or removed for composting. Use a polaski to remove the bulbous roots as discussed previously. These roots should be removed and composted elsewhere. Two to three months later return to the area, and remove blackberries again by clipping and digging roots. Repeat as necessary. It will likely be necessary!

When it is finally time to plant, place the plants, then place burlap or cardboard around the planting and apply 3-4 inches of wood chips as a mulch. This should help control the blackberry, giving the native plants the opportunity to establish without being taken over. The area will again need to be visited continually and the blackberries clipped back until the native plants that have grown to a point where they can shade out the blackberries. This might take a very long time.

At some point in the near future, we need to make a decision regarding the use of herbicides to control blackberry. Should we use herbicide, “cutting and dabbing” seems the to be both the most effective and environmental responsible method of chemical control. Chipping and mowing, and using mulch may also eliminate a number of weak plants and thus even further reduce the amount of herbicide that needs to be applied. Should a “cut and dab” approach be use, it should be applied in mid and late September, the time when the blackberry plants send sugar and nutrients below to the roots. The application should be make on the stocks 5-10 minutes after the cut.

Nesting season should be taken into consideration when removing all invasives plants in the park, including blackberry. Large blackberry thickets should not be removed from late March until the end of July. Re-sprouting plants, however, can be clipped at this time, though special consideration is needed as to how entry into an area will affect nesting birds. We do not want to disturb nesting habitat, but July also might be the best time to mechanically remove the blackberry; the plant is at its weakest having spent energy to produce blooms. Most birds will have fledged by the end of July, but there is no substitute for observation and common sense.

January 2005 (PJV): An example of successful-to-date removal of deeply established blackberry can be seen in area #31, a crescent shaped parcel that lines the south side of the West Point road. A patch of “old growth” BB that stood well over 10 feet tall in places, it was mowed flat by the grounds crew in the summer of 2003. Several volunteers, most notably one of the authors, Tom Palm, have been working on it intensively since, as a sort of demonstration and experimentation project. The process reflects many of the principles outlined elsewhere in this document. First, after the mowing, volunteers aggressively dug up all the BB rootballs by hand. Invasive grasses were also removed. Rather than spending the resources it would take to remove all the invasive plant material (a very large amount!) these materials were heaped up in small, manageable compost heaps. Concurrently, the same volunteers brought in large amounts of chipped wood and large woody debris to the site. Compost heaps were turned regularly and mixed in with chip and in some cases covered with newspaper or cardboard, to ensure invasive seed death. This process alone took over a year to complete and is still ongoing! The composting heaps can be seen from any vehicle driving on the West Point Road. So far, patches of snowberry, mahonia, nootka rose and salmonberry have been planted and are doing well. With the thorough removal of invasives from the site, these introduced natives should have a much easier time of it to become established and vigorous. A few conifers (grand fir and doug firs) have been placed. Madronne and Big Leaf Maple seeds have been sown throughout the site. Overall, hopes are high that this site will rapidly proliferate with aggressive natives, screening the Park from the busy West Point Road and provide a healthy native seed source from which the rest of the Park habitat will benefit.

The site lends itself, and is appropriate for this type of work for several reasons. First, a committed group of volunteers, with an established track record, have committed to seeing the project through. Second, and equally important, the site is along side the West Point road. This location dramatically improves the efficiency of this volunteer labor, as they don’t have to hike and carry tools a significant distance before work begins. Materials like nursery stock and wood chip can be easily brought into the site. Thirdly, because of the number of cars that drive by on the West Point road along its north border, and the number of pedestrians that walk by on the bicycle path along its south border, the site has very high visibility and exposure to the public. Finally this parcel is nearly all “edge” (see discussion on edge above), and replacing the large number of BB seed production with native plant seed production will significantly reduce the overall number of invasive seed load in the Park. Put simply, doing a quality restoration job here pays off big time.

Scot’s Broom (P3)
Scot’s Broom thrives in open, disturbed spaces. Luckily removing this plant proves easier than removing blackberry. Keeping an area free of broom after removal is a different story. Scot’s broom grows quickly, creates a great number of seeds, and disperses these seeds ingenuously. The seeds can remain viable for up to 80 years and responds well to disturbance. This mean that the seed load can be quite high in an area where broom has been present for only a short period of time. One researcher states that the load in Discovery Park was the highest seed load she had ever seen (B. Swift, personal comm. with J. Luthy-Tubbs 1996.)

Our management of Scot’s broom is guided by the plant’s physiology, by biological considerations, and by the limits of our own restorative efforts. Currently we remove broom in selected areas. In other areas, such as the area just north of the South Parking Lot we have chosen not to remove broom at this time because removal would be more disruptive to habitat than we judge acceptable, and would also likely open the area up to infestation by blackberries.

Generally we manage broom in two different ways. We manage using one method for areas where we will eventually restore a closed canopy. We managed another way in open areas that are to remain open.

In open areas constant removal will have to continue indefinitely. When removing broom from an open area, pull all broom with a stem less than ¾ inch in diameter. If larger than ¾ inch in diameter cut it as close to the roots as possible. While younger plants grow back when cut, the older broom does not. This method reduces soil disturbances. Broom can be left on the ground to rot if it does not contain seedpods. Return to sites once or twice yearly to remove new growth. Because seeds can remain in the ground viable for decades, we will have to return for decades, even if the area is re-planted with trees.

In areas that will eventually include a closed canopy, the broom can be slowly be replaced by trees and shrubs. Broom does not seem to reproduce well in shaded areas, so although shade might not kill off broom it does help keep it from proliferating. Understanding this a volunteer named Doug Bergman came up with the idea of planting trees in amongst broom. We called this the Bergman Technique, in honor of Doug. This process will take a great deal of time; years into decades. Remove small areas of broom and plant coniferous trees in amongst the broom. As time progresses, more and more broom can be removed as trees, shrubs and ground covers are planted. In the end, a closed canopy in will replace the broom. You can think of in terms of a mosaic like shift; that is: a shift where a more or less continuous blanket of broom is slowly removed and taken over by patches of conifers. This technique might work particularly well with Douglas fir as this tree grows faster when in the presence of nitrogen fixing plants, and broom happens to be a nitrogen fixing plant.

When removing broom in the meadow, careful consideration should be paid to ground nesting birds. Large groups should not be used to remove broom in the meadow from the end of April to the end of July. Individuals going into the meadow to remove broom should be extremely careful of nesting birds. In other areas such as the area near the chapel, broom removal can usually occur without disrupting nests. Once again, however, there is no substitute for common sense and observation. If savanna sparrows or other ground nesting birds are nesting in the area, wait until they have raised their young.

Holly (P2)
When removing holly it is best to first attack smaller plants that can be taken with a weed wrench. Remove as much of the root as possible. Some volunteers have tried cutting at the base of the plants, but this results a “sourcerer’s apprentice scenario,” (reference to the scene in movie Fantasias where scourer’s apprentice cuts down a wildly out of control magical broom only to creating hundred of smaller other out control magic brooms.) Cutting holly at the roots stimulates the plant’s roots. It then sends out numerous shoots. Hence where there was once one holly plant, there are now several. Some volunteers believe it is easier to attack the re-sprouted holly than to initially take the entire root. I am not convinced this works but will continue to monitor areas where this method has been used.

For the moment we remove small holly plants whose roots are easy to take out. We are attempting a few other techniques and will see how well they work larger plants. Chemical control has worked in other places, but is not used here at this time because it invokes controversy. Previous attempts to girdle (a process where the cambien is removed in a ring entirely around the tree) large holly trees have failed. Timing, however, may be a factor in failure. We will try girdling larger holy trees just before they are ready to flower because at this time the trees have spent a great deal of energy in the production of reproductive organs. Girdling the plant and applying a herbicide to the cambien might be yet another option for larger trees. If this option is to be used, applications of herbicide are best made during the fall.

Pulled holly can be left on the ground to rot or removed and composted. The removal of holly should be timed so that it does not coincide with nesting season for ground nesting birds. Additionally, we need to coordinate entry into the forest with ongoing Song Sparrow research that is occurring in the park. This makes many areas with holly infestations off limits from late March to the middle/end of July.

Laurel (P3)
Follow the same procedures as with holly. This plant too can turn from one “magic broom” into hundreds when cut at the base.

Ivy (P2)
Again, patience and persistence seems to be the rule. Ivy is easily removed by pulling at the roots. This plant, however, shows an incredible ability to re-sprout from the roots, from portions of roots, and seemingly even from the smallest speck of ivy particle. Remove as much of the plant as possible. Shortly after this first removal (2-3 weeks), it is necessary to revisit the site and remove ivy again. This might have to be done numerous times before planting. When planting, the use of wood chips helps greatly. Ivy will grow through the chips, but is easily removed from chips.

The removal of ivy should be timed so that it does not coincide with nesting season for ground nesting birds. This makes ivy off limits from April to the end of July.

Remove ivy from the area to be composted. It is easiest for the grounds crew to pick up ivy when it is rolled in small balls that can be lifted with a hayfork.

Herb Robert (P1)
This plant is easily to pulled, and should be removed before it flowers. Remove it from the area and do not compost. The unusual smell of Herb Robert (a.k.a. Stinky Bob) is possibly a natural herbicide. Additionally this plant produces a great number of seeds that resist a thermal kill of a compost heap and are too small to sift out effectively.

Use care to remove Herb Robert in a manner that goes not disturb nesting birds. This can often be done through out the year along side trails. Removal further into the interior of the forest should be restricted during nesting season (March through July.)

Poison Hemlock (P2)
Control this annual by pulling before its seeds set. I am not sure if it can be composted. Removal is best done in the early spring.

Garlic mustard (P1), Field Mustard (P2)
Control this annual by pulling before its seeds set. It can be composted. Best done in the early spring.

Canadian Thistle (P2, maybe P1?)
The finches love it, but it can be quite invasive. Because the birds enjoy it so much it might be best to control spreading rather than completely remove this plant. Control by removing before seed sets. When removing make a conscious decision on how much you want to leave “ for the birds.”


Sycamore Maple (P3)
This maple looks much like big leaf maple accept that the leaves are less clefted and have more pronounced vanes. Remove by pulling with a weed wrench. If seeds are not present, compost. If seed are present, it should not be composted. Girdling looks to be an option for large tree and once more there is some evidence that mountain beavers like to strip the bark for food. Let’s hope so. The area near five corners is an excellent spot to monitor this behavior.

Giant Hogdeweed (P1)
This plant has a photo-active sap that can chemically burn human skin. Contact grounds to remove this plant. They will come out with protective clothes on and remove the plant.

Morning Glory (P1)
REMOVE AS SOON AS YOU SEE IT! Attempt to minimize soil disturbance. Do not compost. You will need to revisit the area and remove again and again. This plant can grow from even smaller pieces than ivy and produces a ton of seeds.

Native Invasive Plants
Not all invasive plants are exotic. In certain places of the park we have changed the landscape in a manner that has caused certain native plants to become overly aggressive. And if our invasive exotics are something like aliens bent on conquering the park, then these native plants must be something like zombies, who placed under an evil spell are capable of destruction and mayhem.


Native blackberry
Native blackberry (also known as trailing blackberry) is one such plant. For some unknown reason, native blackberry in the southeastern portion of the park has aggressively taken over under the shade of mature alder trees. In recent years we have begun to plant red cedar and hemlock in these areas because the area lacked natural propagation of shade tolerant species. Without monitoring and control, the native blackberry will smother out these planting. Should this continue, the alders will eventually die off, the canopy will be left open, and Himalayan blackberry will likely invade the area. These planting need to be cleared yearly until such time as the trees can grow above the low growing native blackberry. When shade tolerant tree establish, we will have to return likely once again, clear the native blackberry plant native shrubs to increase native plant diversity and foster a more complex forest structure.

Bedstraw
Bedstraw is an annual native that seems to be taking on aggressive behaviors. At this time we do not remove this plant, but we do need to continue to monitor it, and determine if this plant is lowering native diversity.

Salmonberry
Salmonberry can be overly aggressive and take over large area. We do not remove salmon berry and in some case have even planted this plant. We need to be careful when placing this plant in the park, using it with caution.

MINIMIZING WORK OVER THE LONG TERM
As the previous discussion should indicate, the restoration of the park will take a lot of energy and a good deal of time. Given the task before us we obviously want to reduce the amount of work it will take us to sustain habitat that displays a diverse compliment of native plant and animals. Several actions can help us minimize our workload. The current lay of the land invites infestations of invasive plants. and additionally the current condition of mature alder forests in the park limit the amount of natural propagation that can occur beneath the canopy.

Addressing Fragmentation
We want to create as large a piece of habitat as possible and do so in a shape that produces as little edge as possible. But to do this is easier said than done. Unfortunately there are a host of practical, economic, social, and even political factors that all need to be taken into account in figuring out what roads we should remove in the park, and how we should go about promoting habitat beyond the park’s boundaries.

The first thing we want to do is obviously maintain current connections between like habitats. In the park this should not be difficult as it matches the goals of the master plan. This is most obviously done by consciously choosing to work in areas adjacent to already established and really large tracts of habitat. In these areas we want to work from the inside out, using the current associations and habitat structures to build outward—see the Bradley Technique mentioned above.

Additionally, by removing roads we can create larger continuous portions of habitat, but what roads to remove and how much of the roads to remove is a difficult decision. Because these roads contain pipes and drains beneath them and because the army did an excellent job building these roads to last, we need to determine whether we want to remove the entire road or portions. Removing only a portion of a road or narrowing the road into a bike path might meet our goals in a particular area.

Additionally, we also will want to create pathways between areas of one type to another. In these areas a corridor around or through a developed area will help animals disperse between habitats. This can also be accomplished by creating a series of small patches of habitat that might act as “stepping stones” allowing animals to move between habitats.

The use of a Geographic Information System such as ArcView could be extremely helpful in this task. Using this tool we can layer one map atop another, resulting in a method to prioritize areas based on whatever criteria we choose. The city has various coverages for an ArcView system. The military likely also has a number of maps that we can use to this end. The Seattle Urban Habitat Project also has useful information.

Dealing with issues outside the park is a much more difficult task because we have no authority beyond our ability to educate and appeal to the landowners for help. Probably the most realistic goal for us given what we have to work with is to encourage and educate landowners about landscaping practices that will extend habitat beyond the boundaries of the park. The National Wildlife Federation has an excellent backyard habitat program, as does the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and King County.

Addressing Understory Tree Propagation
Yet another action that we can take to reduce the amount of work we need to accomplish to meet our goals is to determine the amount of natural propagation occurring within the forested areas of the park. Should we not see the number of sub-canopy trees that we desire in an area we should plant. This will ensure that the canopy remains closed and thus does gives the forest the chance to move along a more or less continuous successional path. This process takes part in our re-forestation/restoration plan.

PLANTING AND ESTABLISHING NATIVE PLANTS
We have learned a lot more about removing invasive plants than we have about planting natives. This will change over time as we begin to see what we need to do to help plants establish. But there are a few pearls of wisdom we have harvested ourselves and collected elsewhere. Here are eight rough rules that might be helpful when establishing plants. Some of these rules pertain to trees, others to forbes and scrubs, and other to both.
.
The first rule of successful establishment: take clues from nature. When looking to place forbes and shrubs, examine the site, locate existing patches and try to enhance these patches through plantings. The Oregon grape grew together in that particular spot for a particular reason, the salal in another spot for another reason, etc. This does not mean that we should not try to re-introduce species into areas, but rather than when we plant species already found in the area that we do so with the thought that like should be planted near like.

The second rule of successful establishment: there is strength in numbers. Trying to create a patch of less than five forbes or scrubs of a particular species is really just a waste. There is no magical about the number five. In fact in some areas the plant species might require planting with a larger number. More is generally better when trying to add to an established patch or when trying to re-introduce a new species to an area. In the past, practical and funding considerations have limited the number of plants we can put into the ground. Hopefully we can find new ways to get more plants and put much larger number in specific areas.

The third rule: plant them small but not too small. Plants that are planted when they are young will eventually out-produce plants that are planted when they are older and larger. This is largely due to the fact that smaller plants have greater capacity to establish associations within bacteria in the soil. But we do not want to plant plants that are too small, because as one horticulturist put it, “They will just get eaten by the landscape” (S. Blue, Seattle Horticulturist 1999.) So the trick is to find a happy medium and to use a planting scheme that will lead to success. This means that when trying to re-establish a forest, for example, we might want to start with larger plants and later place smaller plants nearby. The large plants will have a chance to hold their own and establish a patch. The smaller plants would then “beef up” this patch and eventually out produce the larger plants.

The fourth rule: plant in the Fall. Plants in the Pacific Northwest must develop roots before the dry summer sets in. We need to plant them in fall to give them a chance to grow.

The fifth rule: know your tree’s needs. Different trees have different tolerances. Alder can grow in the sun, but needs wetter soil. Douglas fir and shore pine need open areas and cannot grow under shade. Hemlock and western red cedars need wet and closed canopies when they are young. Big leaf maple can grow in a closed canopy, and does well, when watered for the first year, in open areas. In short, different trees have different needs. This not only tells us what trees to plant in what area, but also where to place a particular tree in an area. For example, in a open area where we wish to have a mixed forest we want to plant Douglas fir and shore pine in drier, more open spots, and plant dog wood and big leaf maple in wetter areas or in open areas where already established trees will provide shade for a portion of the day.

The sixth rule: diversity is good. We want to plant in a way that increases diversity. Yew, cherry, dogwood, madrona, grand fir, and hemlock are all trees we could plant more. Likewise there are a variety of scrubs we could plant more of: mock orange, serviceberry, huckleberry, and ninebark, to name just a few. Additionally, planting trees over an extended period of time, or planting trees of various ages will help create a diversity of age with the stand.

The seventh rule: build from the top down and inside out. When trying to create a forest in what was once a field of invasives, start by planting trees that will create a canopy and work your way down the layers of the canopy. This will take years, but is likely the only way to really control broom and blackberry. See the Bergman Technique in the previous section.

Additionally, the use of already existing adult vegetation can greatly help us as we try to extend forests or patches of vegetation. The Bradley Technique above describes a method to do just this. To repeat what is stated there: begin by working from areas of already existing native flora and few invasives, and work outward towards the invasives. See above: strength in numbers.

The eighth rule: think about wildlife. Our goal is not only to increase native plant diversity, but also to increase the ability of our park to act as habitat for wildlife. Wildlife need places to hide, places to rest, food, and water. Our plantings can increase the four components with in the forest. Certain scrub species create wonderful thickets in the forest (i.e. salmon berry, Indian plum, and snowberry) that are used by wildlife. Other can grow as a solitary, small refuge in the middle of the meadow (i.e. serviceberry, ocean spray, and cascara). Berry plants are valuable sources of food as well as shelter. Importing logs is also important. Large woody debris provides perching sites, dens site, and food source for insects, and also helps regulate water cycles.

Learning more about the wildlife in the park and their needs is an essential part of becoming a good steward. We work to restore the park; we are not only trying to learn what works for vegetation, but also what works for wildlife. So in short, we have to be aware of the plant/animal associations.

The ninth rule: use the canopy that’s already there. There are many areas of the Park filled with “old growth” broom. It forms an 8-10 foot canopy under which little else but grass grows. The Bergman technique takes advantage of this canopy to introduce native plants under the protection of these old broom stands. The large area east of the south parking lot and south of the “500 area” is filled with this old growth broom. Planting this with an “understory” of new Doug Firs, Cedars, Shore Pines and Hemlock would be a very wise use of limited resources. As these begin to overtake the broom in height, they will easily crowd out the invasives.

Tools, Tasks and Roles
The size of the park, legal considerations, and the magnitude of the task we face, requires us to define the role of parks department employees and the role of volunteers. Volunteers can use certain tools, and we have found that some of these tools are better to some tasks and not so great for others. Other tools, however, can only be used by staff. The same is true of tasks. Volunteers and staff can work together on certain tasks while others will belong solely to each group, composting, plant maintenance, moving piles, and maintaining wood chip piles.

Mowing
Only the grounds crew can use mowers. Because of the negative effects of mowing on insects and plant life we want to be very careful using this tool. The park, however, is so large and invasive plants so persistent that is it unlikely that a volunteer effort alone will be able to control invasives in open areas. Indeed getting volunteers into these open spaces to pull, cut and remove invasives might be just as harmful, if not more so, than mowing at a selected schedule.

When mowing to control invasive there are various options: mowing twice a year, mowing once a year, mowing when needed, or mowing on a rotation. Mowing should occur as close to the first frost as possible, and if done twice a year, as early in the spring as can be done given the wetness of an area’s soil. In some areas, mowing will only have to occur in selected spots—i.e. the blackberry patch in the meadow near the large alder (Tim’s Alder). In other areas, a rotation that controls invasives over several years might be used—i.e. the north bluff and the area near the Utah wetlands. A hammer blade and tractor might be desirable for large areas, while selected areas might require only a hand held weed eater (Links 1999.)

Mowing broom should especially be viewed with caution, as once broom has been cut it is nearly impossible to pull. Mowing blackberry is a reasonable way to get a large patch under control so volunteers can dig up large roots, and use burlap to maintain the area. After volunteers have reduced the number of blackberry plants in the area, herbicide can be applied by cutting a dubbing (if the park’s department is using herbicides.)

If it is determined an area needs to no longer be mowed, we should not be fooled into thinking that we can simply leave it and it will naturally turn into the wild meadow we desire. All meadows in the park are going to have to be intensively managed if we wish to control broom. New growth will make its way into the fields and this will have to be removed. Moreover, by mowing, we have selected for a species of plants that can survive in areas that are mowed. Thus we might want to increase native diversity by helping to establish those plants that we would like to see in the area but that are missing (i.e. camas.)

Herbicides
The use of herbcides also must be done only by staff members. Park’s staff must have a public certification card in order to apply chemical to control vegetation. (Special Note: Integrated Weed Management is a system of management that uses a variety of techniques to control invasive plants. Chemical controls are not completely ruled out. Every attempt is made to limit the amount of chemical use. If we are to use chemicals, we should adopt this philosophy.)

Certain large-scale actions have been taken in the park
A number of large-scale restoration projects have taken place. Source for this information can be found in the Discovery Park Library and by talking with various members of the Discovery Park staff as well as Mark Van Horn and Kevin Stoops. These actions included the removal of large buildings when the fort was closed, the creation of ponds and wetlands, and the use of bio-soils in the meadow in an attempt to reduce the amount of broom. The Shoreline Improvement Report (SPIF) will be extremely helpful towards this end.

Invasive Task Force or Council: These actions need coordination, planning and above all, the input and enthusiasm of many people. A monthly or quarterly meeting could begin to help focus attention on this process. Getting volunteers, Park grounds crew and other employees and Seattle City naturalists together in a regular forum would promote exchange of ideas and potentiate the “brain-storm” effect. Hopefully, this task force could evolve into the primary body in developing a well coordinated plan and help obtain funding to pursue it.

LAST THOUGHTS
It is easy to get discouraged during a restoration project. Invasive plants are persistent. It is important to take joy in small accomplishment: a year’s growth on a Douglas fir tree, a new patch of established thimbleberry, the flowers on a current bush. It is also important to remember that we are not just about pulling things out. True we have to yank invasive plants out by the roots, but what we really want to think about are the things we plant and the habitat we wish to create. This is really the difference between deciding what we do want as opposed to deciding what we do not want. This is a very powerful distinction. Any fool can remove a forest, how many can grow one?