Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I the only one? All over Discovery Park are planted hundreds and hundreds of shore pine in an effort to "reforest" or "restore" the park. Pinus Contorta. Shore Pine. I'm seeing it everywhere. It makes me wonder what the hell is going on with forest restoration in the park? Have the Parks Department staff come under some type of spell, thinking that somehow, planting thousands of pine trees in the Park is a good thing?
Let me outline why I think it is most definitely NOT a good thing. The idea behind planting trees in the Park is to improve habitat for wildlife. This usually means birds. The bigger, the taller and the older growth the trees the better, as that provides a richer palette for more diverse bird and other wild life populations. That is our goal, at least it's mine. Unfortunately, shore pines do not fulfill this goal, in any way shape or form. It is with a great deal of confidence that I can say here and now that shore pine DO NOT WORK! They do not develop into a canopy (best for biodiversity), most of them just stop growing at around 10 years of age and fall over. Seriously. I will be happy to show you hundreds of dead shore pine carcasses that we've planted have failed and had to pull up. Seriously. Isn't it time we actually examine what we're doing and ask is it working? Shore Pines are NOT!
If you want old growth, if you want biodiversity, if you want refugia for wildlife you need a canopy. In Magnolia, located in the mid Puget Sound that means you want to be investing your time and money in a tree that will grow and thrive like Douglas Firs, Hemlocks and Western Red Cedars. The good news is, because these are also used in industrial tree farming, seedlings of these trees are extremely cheap and easy to obtain. And so should be the obvious choice of trees for forest restoration work at Discovery Park.
If you look at the time, effort and expense it requires to plant one tree in the park, would you rather plant something that will stick around for maybe 10-20 years, then die? Or would you be better off planting something that will stick around for many hundreds of years - i.e. conifers like hemlock, doug fir and cedar.
Sunday, January 01, 2017
Friday, December 30, 2016
MY CRIMINAL PAST
In the winter of 1998 as, as an inexperienced forest restoration volunteer in Discovery Park I was faced with the daunting challenge of removing an entire hillside of old growth Himalayan Blackberry. I had just adopted a 4-5 acre site referred to as "number 9" by Park staff and was just starting to get a lay of the land and understand just what I was getting myself into. There were extensive stands of Scots Broom on the site, with a few, but rapidly expanding patches of Himalayan Blackberry (BB). And this patch was the worst.
It was clearly the oldest and most vigorous. It grew on a north sloping hill and had tapped into rich soil and a high water table. The thicket stood nearly 15 feet high and covered a region of hillside measuring roughly 1000 feet square. It may not have been the largest BB patch in the Park, but it was certainly the largest I was going to have to face. At the base of the hill ran a paved bicycle and pedestrian pathway. On the other side of this path was another large patch of the same. Maintenance crews kept the path clear of the blackberries but had done little else. At the top of the hill, the blackberries had crept over the top to a flat plateau and were beginning to infiltrate into a Scotts Broom patch. Most of the blackberry canes were over an inch thick. This thing towered over anyone who came near. Nothing else was growing on the hillside.
Having just started as a volunteer for the City, I had little experience or knowlege of the Parks department, it's staff or protocols. I was vaguely aware of a rule forbidding the use of power tools by volunteers, but felt it was likely a don't ask, don't tell arrangement. After unsuccessfully trying hand clippers, loppers, a shovel, machete's and handsaws (I have a strong aversion to the use herbicides), I decided that a small hand held power tool solution was the next step. Thinking that a simple weed wacker would get the job done, I tried my our old cheapo suburban model and immediately realized it wasn't up to the job of cutting through 1 inch BB canes. So I stopped by a lawn mower and power tool place nearby and found a used 2-stroke heavy duty weed whacker called the Green Machine. On a long aluminum straight shaft, it had a nice heft. I had them replace the wimpy string spool with a heavy duty metal cutting disc known as a "brush cutter".
Here was the weapon I needed to take out this patch. Powerful and very effective. For around $150 I was out the door eager to take on the savage invaders. I waited till the next rainy day (muffle chain saw noise - I thought) and proceeded to whack away at the patch. It took a surprisingly short period of time to mow down the entire patch. As I recall, I had the whole patch down in 2 mornings of work. Since they were on a north facing hill (hence the name North Slope), it was relatively easy to mow and muscle these huge canes into the valley below. By the time I was through there was a gigantic pile of mulched BB cane at the bottom.
Since this was January, I knew I only had a few months before 1) ground birds started nesting and 2) blackberries would come roaring back. I had tried at other sites to take on these patches wholesale. This rapidly had become an endless job. Instead, I thought of organizing my work around a single planting zone that could be easily maintained over the years with perhaps one or two weeding and overall upkeep visits per year.
I built my strategy around the Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Extremely fast growing, shooting out thick bushy branches and hopefully smothering the soon-to-be recurrent himalayan blackberries. These babies grow in virtually any Pacific NW conditions. Dry, wet, sunny, parially shady. I had about 15-20 doug fir 2-3 year seedlings - meaning they were about 18 inches tall. These were planted by careful, meticulous removal of all BB rootballs in a circle 4-6 foot around. The seedlings were planted in the center of these invasive-free zones. Still, they looked forlorn and raggedy. Little green shavers, surrounded by devastated BB canes.
Every 6 month or so, my plan was to stop in and easily remove the few BB swarming over the growing tree. Planting these took just a few days.
No surprise, these things took off like rockets. Today (winter 2005), some of the biggest are 20 feet tall. By my crude estimate, most of them are adding 2 - 3 feet of height per year.
Do the ends justify the means? Probably not. Imagine what would happen to our Parks if some lunatic takes a brush cutter or even worse (chain saw) to every park in the Seattle Parks system. Complete chaos. Not to mention the injuries suffered - some potentially life threatening. Do I condone what I did? No. Absolutely not. But I am not the only citizen of this City that has broken the rules because of frustration with the pace of (or lack thereof) habitat restoration in Discovery Park, or whatever remaining green space is left. Am I the only citizen frustrated by the apparent inability of Parks department to act as good stewards of our public lands? No.
It was clearly the oldest and most vigorous. It grew on a north sloping hill and had tapped into rich soil and a high water table. The thicket stood nearly 15 feet high and covered a region of hillside measuring roughly 1000 feet square. It may not have been the largest BB patch in the Park, but it was certainly the largest I was going to have to face. At the base of the hill ran a paved bicycle and pedestrian pathway. On the other side of this path was another large patch of the same. Maintenance crews kept the path clear of the blackberries but had done little else. At the top of the hill, the blackberries had crept over the top to a flat plateau and were beginning to infiltrate into a Scotts Broom patch. Most of the blackberry canes were over an inch thick. This thing towered over anyone who came near. Nothing else was growing on the hillside.
Having just started as a volunteer for the City, I had little experience or knowlege of the Parks department, it's staff or protocols. I was vaguely aware of a rule forbidding the use of power tools by volunteers, but felt it was likely a don't ask, don't tell arrangement. After unsuccessfully trying hand clippers, loppers, a shovel, machete's and handsaws (I have a strong aversion to the use herbicides), I decided that a small hand held power tool solution was the next step. Thinking that a simple weed wacker would get the job done, I tried my our old cheapo suburban model and immediately realized it wasn't up to the job of cutting through 1 inch BB canes. So I stopped by a lawn mower and power tool place nearby and found a used 2-stroke heavy duty weed whacker called the Green Machine. On a long aluminum straight shaft, it had a nice heft. I had them replace the wimpy string spool with a heavy duty metal cutting disc known as a "brush cutter".
Here was the weapon I needed to take out this patch. Powerful and very effective. For around $150 I was out the door eager to take on the savage invaders. I waited till the next rainy day (muffle chain saw noise - I thought) and proceeded to whack away at the patch. It took a surprisingly short period of time to mow down the entire patch. As I recall, I had the whole patch down in 2 mornings of work. Since they were on a north facing hill (hence the name North Slope), it was relatively easy to mow and muscle these huge canes into the valley below. By the time I was through there was a gigantic pile of mulched BB cane at the bottom.
Since this was January, I knew I only had a few months before 1) ground birds started nesting and 2) blackberries would come roaring back. I had tried at other sites to take on these patches wholesale. This rapidly had become an endless job. Instead, I thought of organizing my work around a single planting zone that could be easily maintained over the years with perhaps one or two weeding and overall upkeep visits per year.
I built my strategy around the Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Extremely fast growing, shooting out thick bushy branches and hopefully smothering the soon-to-be recurrent himalayan blackberries. These babies grow in virtually any Pacific NW conditions. Dry, wet, sunny, parially shady. I had about 15-20 doug fir 2-3 year seedlings - meaning they were about 18 inches tall. These were planted by careful, meticulous removal of all BB rootballs in a circle 4-6 foot around. The seedlings were planted in the center of these invasive-free zones. Still, they looked forlorn and raggedy. Little green shavers, surrounded by devastated BB canes.
Every 6 month or so, my plan was to stop in and easily remove the few BB swarming over the growing tree. Planting these took just a few days.
No surprise, these things took off like rockets. Today (winter 2005), some of the biggest are 20 feet tall. By my crude estimate, most of them are adding 2 - 3 feet of height per year.
Do the ends justify the means? Probably not. Imagine what would happen to our Parks if some lunatic takes a brush cutter or even worse (chain saw) to every park in the Seattle Parks system. Complete chaos. Not to mention the injuries suffered - some potentially life threatening. Do I condone what I did? No. Absolutely not. But I am not the only citizen of this City that has broken the rules because of frustration with the pace of (or lack thereof) habitat restoration in Discovery Park, or whatever remaining green space is left. Am I the only citizen frustrated by the apparent inability of Parks department to act as good stewards of our public lands? No.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
LETTER TO MAYOR NICKELS ON ARMY RESERVE AND BRAC PROCESS
November 2006
From: Discovery Park Advisory Council
Re: U.S. Army Reserve Parcel
To: Mayor Nickels:
The Discovery Park Advisory Council (DPAC) would like to express our views regarding future development of the U.S. Army Reserve Parcel, which lies between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. We hope these proposals will be supported by the Friends of Discovery Park, the Magnolia Community Club, Heron Habitat Helpers, Sustainable Ballard, and other local stakeholders.
The Army Reserve Parcel is located strategically between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine, separating two of the City’s most important wildlife reservoirs. The divestiture of Army Reserve ownership provides an unprecedented opportunity to link these two reserves.
The Army Reserve Parcel also contributes significantly to the watershed of Wolfe Creek in Kiwanis Ravine and Salmon Bay. Salmon Bay is a vital regional salmon habitat. This potential change in ownership opens the door to possible reductions in contaminated surface runoff (oils and other wastes) into the Wolfe Creek watershed -- and improve the overall water quality of the Salmon Bay estuary for migrating salmon.
Within the context of your Green Seattle Partnership initiated last year and your just-announced draft Urban Forest Management Plan, we believe that strong City advocacy is needed to protect this Parcel, which contains lands within the City’s designated “critical area ordinance” for 40% or more steep slope, potential slide area, and fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, this Parcel contains lands included in a draft-in-process Department of Planning & Development Director’s Rule establishing the Kiwanis Ravine Great Blue Heron Management Area.
Because of its value to wildlife, DPAC urges the designation of a City-sanctioned wildlife corridor, to include the Army Reserve, the privately owned areas between Kiwanis Ravine and Discovery Park and Bay Terrace Road. This special wildlife corridor designation would enhance the ability of fish and wildlife to utilize the greater Salmon Bay/Kiwanis Ravine/Discovery Park Ecosystem.
We therefore propose the following:
1) The City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation should seek and obtain legal title to all unused open space, green belts, fences, medians, parking strips, and forested areas as well as any potential future open space which might be designated in the Army Reserve Parcel.
2) Any existing buildings or pavement not currently used should be removed and converted to open space. This is especially true of the large parking lot in the extreme NE corner of the property, which covers a relatively steep slope with surface runoff into Kiwanis Ravine.
3) All landscaping within the Army Preserve Parcel be native plantings only. Specifically, we urge the planting of future nesting trees for the great blue herons of Kiwanis Ravine. Make this corridor a showcase of your draft Urban Forest Management Plan.
4) Any new uses of the Army Reserve Parcel should not be allowed to impact Discovery Park or Kiwanis Ravine more than current use. As an example, the number of vehicles entering the parcel, noise, lighting, pets off leash, etc. should not increase as a result of change in ownership or use.
5) All exterior lighting in the Army Reserve Parcel should be wildlife friendly and minimize night time light pollution, with full cut-off fixtures and the light source fully shielded.
6) Any exterior construction activities occurring within the Army Reserve Parcel be restricted to seasons not in conflict with the nesting season of either the Great Blue Herons of Kiwanis Ravine or Bald Eagles using the Discovery Park peninsula for nesting. In addition, the developers of any proposed construction in the Parcel would be required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement, prior to issuance of a building permit, detailing how their construction will not harm wildlife.
7) All trees 6 inches in diameter measured at 4 ½ feet above the ground shall be retained within this corridor, unless the tree is diseased or threatens life or property. This would significantly increase the tree canopy in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay Wildlife Corridor and improve ability of wildlife to move through the area.
8) Exteriors of any new construction or changes to existing buildings be designed so as not to attract, increase or cause flying birds to collide with the structure.
We also believe the City should support improvements in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay ecosystem by: (a) establishing Kiwanis Ravine as the City’s first official nature preserve, wildlife refuge, or similar name with special regulations protecting the Great Blue Heron nesting season, (b) taking steps to initiate the daylighting of Wolfe Creek through Commodore Park into Salmon Bay – reconnecting this watershed and its freshwater estuary to aid the migration of millions of salmon, and (c) linking management of the entire complex – the two parks, the wildlife corridor, and daylighted Wolfe Creek in Commodore Park.
We understand the challenges that this represents and urge you to support the greater Discovery Park Ecosystem. This is an historic opportunity for all citizens of Seattle. We are confident of your support.
Sincerely - The Discovery Park Advisory Council
CC: Seattle City Council members
Ron Sims
Larry Phillips
Christine Gregoire
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Jim McDermott
Norm Dicks
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Rep. Helen Sommers
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson
Phil Lane – UIATF
Paul Thompson – Friends of Discovery Park
Magnolia Community Council
Sustainable Ballard
Heron Habitat Helpers
From: Discovery Park Advisory Council
Re: U.S. Army Reserve Parcel
To: Mayor Nickels:
The Discovery Park Advisory Council (DPAC) would like to express our views regarding future development of the U.S. Army Reserve Parcel, which lies between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine. We hope these proposals will be supported by the Friends of Discovery Park, the Magnolia Community Club, Heron Habitat Helpers, Sustainable Ballard, and other local stakeholders.
The Army Reserve Parcel is located strategically between Discovery Park and Kiwanis Ravine, separating two of the City’s most important wildlife reservoirs. The divestiture of Army Reserve ownership provides an unprecedented opportunity to link these two reserves.
The Army Reserve Parcel also contributes significantly to the watershed of Wolfe Creek in Kiwanis Ravine and Salmon Bay. Salmon Bay is a vital regional salmon habitat. This potential change in ownership opens the door to possible reductions in contaminated surface runoff (oils and other wastes) into the Wolfe Creek watershed -- and improve the overall water quality of the Salmon Bay estuary for migrating salmon.
Within the context of your Green Seattle Partnership initiated last year and your just-announced draft Urban Forest Management Plan, we believe that strong City advocacy is needed to protect this Parcel, which contains lands within the City’s designated “critical area ordinance” for 40% or more steep slope, potential slide area, and fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, this Parcel contains lands included in a draft-in-process Department of Planning & Development Director’s Rule establishing the Kiwanis Ravine Great Blue Heron Management Area.
Because of its value to wildlife, DPAC urges the designation of a City-sanctioned wildlife corridor, to include the Army Reserve, the privately owned areas between Kiwanis Ravine and Discovery Park and Bay Terrace Road. This special wildlife corridor designation would enhance the ability of fish and wildlife to utilize the greater Salmon Bay/Kiwanis Ravine/Discovery Park Ecosystem.
We therefore propose the following:
1) The City of Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation should seek and obtain legal title to all unused open space, green belts, fences, medians, parking strips, and forested areas as well as any potential future open space which might be designated in the Army Reserve Parcel.
2) Any existing buildings or pavement not currently used should be removed and converted to open space. This is especially true of the large parking lot in the extreme NE corner of the property, which covers a relatively steep slope with surface runoff into Kiwanis Ravine.
3) All landscaping within the Army Preserve Parcel be native plantings only. Specifically, we urge the planting of future nesting trees for the great blue herons of Kiwanis Ravine. Make this corridor a showcase of your draft Urban Forest Management Plan.
4) Any new uses of the Army Reserve Parcel should not be allowed to impact Discovery Park or Kiwanis Ravine more than current use. As an example, the number of vehicles entering the parcel, noise, lighting, pets off leash, etc. should not increase as a result of change in ownership or use.
5) All exterior lighting in the Army Reserve Parcel should be wildlife friendly and minimize night time light pollution, with full cut-off fixtures and the light source fully shielded.
6) Any exterior construction activities occurring within the Army Reserve Parcel be restricted to seasons not in conflict with the nesting season of either the Great Blue Herons of Kiwanis Ravine or Bald Eagles using the Discovery Park peninsula for nesting. In addition, the developers of any proposed construction in the Parcel would be required to submit an Environmental Impact Statement, prior to issuance of a building permit, detailing how their construction will not harm wildlife.
7) All trees 6 inches in diameter measured at 4 ½ feet above the ground shall be retained within this corridor, unless the tree is diseased or threatens life or property. This would significantly increase the tree canopy in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay Wildlife Corridor and improve ability of wildlife to move through the area.
8) Exteriors of any new construction or changes to existing buildings be designed so as not to attract, increase or cause flying birds to collide with the structure.
We also believe the City should support improvements in the Discovery Park/Kiwanis Ravine/Salmon Bay ecosystem by: (a) establishing Kiwanis Ravine as the City’s first official nature preserve, wildlife refuge, or similar name with special regulations protecting the Great Blue Heron nesting season, (b) taking steps to initiate the daylighting of Wolfe Creek through Commodore Park into Salmon Bay – reconnecting this watershed and its freshwater estuary to aid the migration of millions of salmon, and (c) linking management of the entire complex – the two parks, the wildlife corridor, and daylighted Wolfe Creek in Commodore Park.
We understand the challenges that this represents and urge you to support the greater Discovery Park Ecosystem. This is an historic opportunity for all citizens of Seattle. We are confident of your support.
Sincerely - The Discovery Park Advisory Council
CC: Seattle City Council members
Ron Sims
Larry Phillips
Christine Gregoire
Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles
Jim McDermott
Norm Dicks
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Rep. Helen Sommers
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson
Phil Lane – UIATF
Paul Thompson – Friends of Discovery Park
Magnolia Community Council
Sustainable Ballard
Heron Habitat Helpers
Saturday, March 10, 2007
MAGNOLIA NEWS EDITORIAL BY BOB KILDALL
The following is a guest column written by Bob Kildall published in the Magnolia News February 2007 -
Doug Taylor’s letter (Magnolia News 2-7-07) poses the question why the money from the settlement agreement is planned to be used to demolish the Nike building in Discovery Park.
The settlement agreement was a legal document between Metro (now Metropolitan King County) and five environmental and civic groups that sought the replacement of the large existing sewage digesters with a system with less odor and consuming less land. By giving up their appeal these citizens allowed Metro’s secondary plant to be built without further delays. These same citizens had supported secondary treatment.
In turn Metro agreed to terms in the agreement to form a citizen’s committee and provided $5-million to study treatment processes that might reduces the impact on the park by the year 2000. If these studies failed they would pay a settlement of $3-million dollars plus interest. After a decade that totaled over $5-million.
The funds would come to the city with this proviso:
“All funds paid under this subsection shall be dedicated to improvements to Discovery Park consistent with the primary function and central purpose as defined in the Discovery Park Master Plan, and if any funds remain, to the acquisition and improvement of saltwater beaches.”
This section of the plan is found under the Park Guiding Principles and reads:
“The primary role of this park in the life of the city is dictated by its incomparable site. That role should be to provide and open space of quiet and tranquility for the citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring. It should be accepted that this park cannot satisfy all of the recreational needs of all of the citizens of Seattle. It can only complement the other elements in the park system. This park should not be asked to serve too many functions. It will best serve this city if it is permitted to serve one primary function and to serve that function well.”
The next paragraph in the principles is named “Future Structures and Activities. It states:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open space.”
These are two sections are part of nine paragraphs that comprise the guiding principles.
Removing the Nike building to restore the property as a natural area conforms with the Park’s Plan’s ultimate objective. That was “…the acquisition of all lands which presently comprise the site of Fort Lawton.” It also fulfills the Magnolia Community Club’s 1969 Fort Lawton Park Recommendations. The ten recommendations were based on a club’s survey that had called for a natural park. The survey was led by Club members Bill Jeske and Ed Mueller. They had citizens canvass every third home on Magnolia with the oversight by the University of Washington’s Bureau of Community Development.
Since then there have been nearly 150-proposals for “just a piece of the park.” But a host of citizens believe in defending the primary function-central purpose of this Park. We live in a country where Nature is being often overlooked and trashed and constantly diminished. Discovery Park helps fulfill our open space needs and the needs for solitude from the stress of urban living for the citizens yet to come. Removing the Nike site is one way to return that part of the Park to Nature.
Robert Kildall
February 13, 2007
Doug Taylor’s letter (Magnolia News 2-7-07) poses the question why the money from the settlement agreement is planned to be used to demolish the Nike building in Discovery Park.
The settlement agreement was a legal document between Metro (now Metropolitan King County) and five environmental and civic groups that sought the replacement of the large existing sewage digesters with a system with less odor and consuming less land. By giving up their appeal these citizens allowed Metro’s secondary plant to be built without further delays. These same citizens had supported secondary treatment.
In turn Metro agreed to terms in the agreement to form a citizen’s committee and provided $5-million to study treatment processes that might reduces the impact on the park by the year 2000. If these studies failed they would pay a settlement of $3-million dollars plus interest. After a decade that totaled over $5-million.
The funds would come to the city with this proviso:
“All funds paid under this subsection shall be dedicated to improvements to Discovery Park consistent with the primary function and central purpose as defined in the Discovery Park Master Plan, and if any funds remain, to the acquisition and improvement of saltwater beaches.”
This section of the plan is found under the Park Guiding Principles and reads:
“The primary role of this park in the life of the city is dictated by its incomparable site. That role should be to provide and open space of quiet and tranquility for the citizens of this city—a sanctuary where they might escape the turmoil of the city and enjoy the rejuvenation which quiet and solitude and an intimate contact with nature can bring. It should be accepted that this park cannot satisfy all of the recreational needs of all of the citizens of Seattle. It can only complement the other elements in the park system. This park should not be asked to serve too many functions. It will best serve this city if it is permitted to serve one primary function and to serve that function well.”
The next paragraph in the principles is named “Future Structures and Activities. It states:
“In the years to come there will be almost irresistible pressure to carve out areas of the park in order to provide sites for various civic structures or space for special activities. There will in the future be structures and activities without number for which, it will be contended, this park can provide an “ideal site” at no cost. The pressures for those sites may constitute the greatest single threat to the park. They must be resisted with resolution. If they are not, the park will be so fragmented that it can no longer serve its central purpose. Only those activities and only those structures should be accepted which are in harmony with the overall theme, character and objective of the park. There must be a deep commitment to the belief that there is no more valuable use of this site than as an open space.”
These are two sections are part of nine paragraphs that comprise the guiding principles.
Removing the Nike building to restore the property as a natural area conforms with the Park’s Plan’s ultimate objective. That was “…the acquisition of all lands which presently comprise the site of Fort Lawton.” It also fulfills the Magnolia Community Club’s 1969 Fort Lawton Park Recommendations. The ten recommendations were based on a club’s survey that had called for a natural park. The survey was led by Club members Bill Jeske and Ed Mueller. They had citizens canvass every third home on Magnolia with the oversight by the University of Washington’s Bureau of Community Development.
Since then there have been nearly 150-proposals for “just a piece of the park.” But a host of citizens believe in defending the primary function-central purpose of this Park. We live in a country where Nature is being often overlooked and trashed and constantly diminished. Discovery Park helps fulfill our open space needs and the needs for solitude from the stress of urban living for the citizens yet to come. Removing the Nike site is one way to return that part of the Park to Nature.
Robert Kildall
February 13, 2007
Friday, January 20, 2006
THE 500 AREA - LESSONS LEARNED
The vast majority of Discovery Park was once covered with buildings – typically military barracks or offices. Most of these have been demolished, although many still remain, including the Nike building, building 653 and the Capehart housing units. In addition, there are many sites that used to contain military buildings and pavement but have had no significant restoration efforts applied to them. Examples of this type of restoration challenge include the old theater site, the old ball field near Capehart and the triangular shaped parcel of land just south of Capehart. Most of these sites contained buildings, parking lots or roads in the past that were removed but without significant restoration efforts to follow with the presumption that "mother nature" would take over and self restore. Predictably, this approach has been less than successful. Generally speaking they are now infested with the usual mix of invasives like Scots Broom and Himalayan Blackberry and very little native plant life. Their ability to support habitat is low. And they represent an ongoing source of invasive seed production, threatening the rest of the Park.
When return of the 500 Area was announced in the mid to late 1990s (to include demolition of all 24 barracks and removal of all pavement), members of the Friends of Discovery Park and the Discovery Park Advisory Council decided to lend their support in making restoration of this parcel a priority, and to hopefully to improve upon the previous method of restoration. Coincident with the announcement were several public input meetings for the development of a Vegetation Management Plan for the Park by Jones and Stokes. These public meetings further galvanized public support for an effective approach to restoring this site.
The 500 Area is a 9 acre site occupied for many years by the US Army Reserve. It contained approximately 24 old wooden barrack buildings. Historic aerial photos show it to be part of a much larger complex of barracks which extended nearly to Emerson on the south border of the Park. In the early 1990’s, Discovery Park advocates (including Bob Kildal and Heidi Carpine) worked closely with the City and Senators Slade Gorton and Patty Murray to allow transfer ownership of this parcel to the City once the Army Reserve was finished with it. Once members of the Advisory Council learned that a specific date of property transfer had been decided upon, we realized this could represent a new opportunity to improve upon the old scrape-and-walk approach. DPAC applied for and received a Small and Simple grant for $10,000.00 from the City’s Department of Neighborhoods. After interviewing several firms, the landscape architect firm of Charles Anderson was selected. Three public input meetings were held, after which a restoration plan for the site was developed and approved by the City. Meanwhile, the US Army subcontractor began demolishing the buildings, hauling away pavement and removing fuel oil contaminated soils. The original plan was set to cost nearly $1 million. However, when it became apparent the demolition costs were going to be less than originally budgeted (!), the US Army agreed to fund some limited restoration with the left over funds (approximately $300k). Charles Anderson re-worked and downscaled the plan to bring it within this much tighter budget. It was submitted to and approved by the City. The minimalist plan funded by the US Army markedly reduced the overall number and variety of native plants available to be planted, and implemented other cost saving changes like less coverage by wood chip compost (hogfuel).
Details of the 500 Area restoration plan are available elsewhere including at the Discovery Park library. Briefly it called for the creation of 24 “cells” built in the outline of the old barrack buildings. These cells would contain a large variety of native plants, bordered by weed control fabric, which would eventually spill out of the cell and repopulate the surrounding areas with a large variety of diverse native plants. Because of the cost saving considerations above, the wood chip compost was only used on approximately 40% of the parcel, restricted to the northern end. The southern end of the parcel received no composting material. Alder was planted throughout the composted area in the north end of the parcel, in between the cells. No alder was planted in the south end, just the native plant “cells”. All planting was completed in mid winter 2002.
By early spring of 2003, the development of several large pools of standing water occurred as the result of heavy spring rains. These seasonal wetlands were felt to represent ideal and very unique (to the Park) wildlife habitat to many observers. Unfortunately the water covered portions of the trail, leading to many complaints by the public. Additionally, there was concern by City experts as to the stability of the slope on the eastern edge of the parcel. All of these issues led to the City to demand of the Army Reserve to put in place an extensive network of drainage tiles, removing most standing water from the site. This was done the following year.
The 500 Area today, 4 years later:
The following are subjective observations and are not supported by careful data accumulation. Nonetheless, there are some clearly evident trends that are worth looking at. First, the alder have been phenomenally successful, many growing from 4-6 feet tall to over 20 feet tall in just 4 years. As a result, the area planted with alder enjoys a relatively dense canopy during the hot summer months, providing cool shade to the understory, as well as a thick layer of decomposing alder leaves every fall. Secondly the native plant cells have been allowed to become overgrown with invasives. The weed control fabric has not controlled any weed growth, rather, represents an impediment to weed removal. Once the weeds grow through the fabric, they are extremely difficult to pull and eradicate. Thirdly, the southern end of the parcel (which received no compost layer or alder over-planting) has much less shade and canopy and is much more invaded by weeds. Lastly, the heavy invasive seed load from the Nike building site and the entire western margin of the parcel has rapidly moved into the previously open 500 area.
So what have we learned from this experience? Obviously, a more detailed analysis could and should be done, but here are my “back of the envelope” thoughts.
First, what did we do right?
1) composting – the “hogfuel” used has been very successful in reducing the ingrowth of invasives, though not 100%. Comparing the composted area of the site with the non-composted area is very instructive. The south end is nearly overgrown with non-native grasses, Scots Broom and Himalayan BB. The north end is relatively free of invasives. In fact, many native pioneers are sprouting up in the area.
2) use of alder – the nitrogen poor soil present when pavement is removed seems to be ideal soil to plant alder in. As many others have stated, alder is an ideal short lived restoration tree. It’s rapid growth, extensive shade production and soil nitrogen fixation capabilities are perfect for a damaged site like the 500. It’s clearly working very well.
3) residual mature trees – during the planning process, several DPAC members went with Parks personnel on a walk through the site, examining the existing trees for the presence of disease and need for removal. Many trees were considered “unhealthy” by Parks staff and felt to be good candidates for removal. Objections were raised and nearly all of them allowed to remain instead. Remember - these trees spent most of their lives growing between buildings and parking lots with many limbs removed to prevent damage to the buildings. As a result, many of them are sickly and prematurely aged. Despite this, they have provided an ideal seed source for the restoration process. A great example of this can be found in the northern end of the parcel where a battered and beaten hemlock has dropped seed producing hundreds if not thousands of hemlock seedlings in a single year.
4) early planning – What was most surprising to citizens involved in the process was the complete lack of planning on the part of Parks. It was this element that spurred us to work as hard on this project as we did. It’s not clear what would have happened had DPAC not taken the initiative and gotten a plan started, but it’s doubtful we would have had as positive outcome as we did.
5) leveraging - a small grant of $10k was turned into a major restoration project worth more than $300k from the US Army. The City was given at no charge (or very small one) a restored parcel – with very little effort on follow-up (see below). A clear demonstration of what remarkable yields a small but propitious investment can produce.
6) use of outside expertise – the use of an outside landscape architectural firm brought skills, experience and expertise to bear that Parks does not have. Outsiders bring fresh perspectives to the job that are frequently quite useful.
What did we do wrong?
1) invasives on the margin – like so many projects in the Park, invasives covering the hillside just west of the 500 area were not removed. As a result, their seed production dropped on the previously “clean” 500 area, contaminating the project.
2) weed control fabric – although the cells seemed like a good idea, the placement of weed control fabric has only hindered removal of the weeds invading the cells. For whatever reason (lack of hogfuel?), Himalayan Blackberry has aggressively moved into the cells and grown into the fabric, making it almost impossible to remove entirely. Rather than representing native restoration potential, they’ve become invasive problem areas.
3) poor cooperation between Parks staff, DPAC and outside consultant – from nearly the beginning, there seemed to be very limited input from Parks staff – or at least limited communication of concerns to either DPAC or the landscape architect. The assumption that all of Parks agreed and supported the plan based on the official Parks approval of the plan was not valid.
4) lack of followup – because actual ownership of the property remained in the hands of the Army for several years afterwards, Parks staff was reluctant to perform the much needed followup maintenance that was presumed as part of the plan. This also became an issue when individual volunteers organized their own work parties in the area. Volunteers were told not to do any work in the area because of liability concerns.
Conclusions:
Projects on this type of scale are not easy. They present many logistical, financial and organizational challenges that test the capacity of any organization. The current 500 Area reflects all of the conflicting demands that are on our City Parks staff and budget. Unfortunately, we have more, not fewer of these in our immediate and intermediate future as a Park community. It is mandatory that all parties (Parks administration, local Parks staff, citizen advocates and non-profit groups) sit down in a non-confrontational manner well in advance of the action and hash out groundrules for the restoration process. It takes very little to send a complex process like this sideways. The natural habitat of Discovery Park is threatened. We can’t afford anything less than success. And we as the public, have both the right and responsibility to see to it that it happens.
When return of the 500 Area was announced in the mid to late 1990s (to include demolition of all 24 barracks and removal of all pavement), members of the Friends of Discovery Park and the Discovery Park Advisory Council decided to lend their support in making restoration of this parcel a priority, and to hopefully to improve upon the previous method of restoration. Coincident with the announcement were several public input meetings for the development of a Vegetation Management Plan for the Park by Jones and Stokes. These public meetings further galvanized public support for an effective approach to restoring this site.
The 500 Area is a 9 acre site occupied for many years by the US Army Reserve. It contained approximately 24 old wooden barrack buildings. Historic aerial photos show it to be part of a much larger complex of barracks which extended nearly to Emerson on the south border of the Park. In the early 1990’s, Discovery Park advocates (including Bob Kildal and Heidi Carpine) worked closely with the City and Senators Slade Gorton and Patty Murray to allow transfer ownership of this parcel to the City once the Army Reserve was finished with it. Once members of the Advisory Council learned that a specific date of property transfer had been decided upon, we realized this could represent a new opportunity to improve upon the old scrape-and-walk approach. DPAC applied for and received a Small and Simple grant for $10,000.00 from the City’s Department of Neighborhoods. After interviewing several firms, the landscape architect firm of Charles Anderson was selected. Three public input meetings were held, after which a restoration plan for the site was developed and approved by the City. Meanwhile, the US Army subcontractor began demolishing the buildings, hauling away pavement and removing fuel oil contaminated soils. The original plan was set to cost nearly $1 million. However, when it became apparent the demolition costs were going to be less than originally budgeted (!), the US Army agreed to fund some limited restoration with the left over funds (approximately $300k). Charles Anderson re-worked and downscaled the plan to bring it within this much tighter budget. It was submitted to and approved by the City. The minimalist plan funded by the US Army markedly reduced the overall number and variety of native plants available to be planted, and implemented other cost saving changes like less coverage by wood chip compost (hogfuel).
Details of the 500 Area restoration plan are available elsewhere including at the Discovery Park library. Briefly it called for the creation of 24 “cells” built in the outline of the old barrack buildings. These cells would contain a large variety of native plants, bordered by weed control fabric, which would eventually spill out of the cell and repopulate the surrounding areas with a large variety of diverse native plants. Because of the cost saving considerations above, the wood chip compost was only used on approximately 40% of the parcel, restricted to the northern end. The southern end of the parcel received no composting material. Alder was planted throughout the composted area in the north end of the parcel, in between the cells. No alder was planted in the south end, just the native plant “cells”. All planting was completed in mid winter 2002.
By early spring of 2003, the development of several large pools of standing water occurred as the result of heavy spring rains. These seasonal wetlands were felt to represent ideal and very unique (to the Park) wildlife habitat to many observers. Unfortunately the water covered portions of the trail, leading to many complaints by the public. Additionally, there was concern by City experts as to the stability of the slope on the eastern edge of the parcel. All of these issues led to the City to demand of the Army Reserve to put in place an extensive network of drainage tiles, removing most standing water from the site. This was done the following year.
The 500 Area today, 4 years later:
The following are subjective observations and are not supported by careful data accumulation. Nonetheless, there are some clearly evident trends that are worth looking at. First, the alder have been phenomenally successful, many growing from 4-6 feet tall to over 20 feet tall in just 4 years. As a result, the area planted with alder enjoys a relatively dense canopy during the hot summer months, providing cool shade to the understory, as well as a thick layer of decomposing alder leaves every fall. Secondly the native plant cells have been allowed to become overgrown with invasives. The weed control fabric has not controlled any weed growth, rather, represents an impediment to weed removal. Once the weeds grow through the fabric, they are extremely difficult to pull and eradicate. Thirdly, the southern end of the parcel (which received no compost layer or alder over-planting) has much less shade and canopy and is much more invaded by weeds. Lastly, the heavy invasive seed load from the Nike building site and the entire western margin of the parcel has rapidly moved into the previously open 500 area.
So what have we learned from this experience? Obviously, a more detailed analysis could and should be done, but here are my “back of the envelope” thoughts.
First, what did we do right?
1) composting – the “hogfuel” used has been very successful in reducing the ingrowth of invasives, though not 100%. Comparing the composted area of the site with the non-composted area is very instructive. The south end is nearly overgrown with non-native grasses, Scots Broom and Himalayan BB. The north end is relatively free of invasives. In fact, many native pioneers are sprouting up in the area.
2) use of alder – the nitrogen poor soil present when pavement is removed seems to be ideal soil to plant alder in. As many others have stated, alder is an ideal short lived restoration tree. It’s rapid growth, extensive shade production and soil nitrogen fixation capabilities are perfect for a damaged site like the 500. It’s clearly working very well.
3) residual mature trees – during the planning process, several DPAC members went with Parks personnel on a walk through the site, examining the existing trees for the presence of disease and need for removal. Many trees were considered “unhealthy” by Parks staff and felt to be good candidates for removal. Objections were raised and nearly all of them allowed to remain instead. Remember - these trees spent most of their lives growing between buildings and parking lots with many limbs removed to prevent damage to the buildings. As a result, many of them are sickly and prematurely aged. Despite this, they have provided an ideal seed source for the restoration process. A great example of this can be found in the northern end of the parcel where a battered and beaten hemlock has dropped seed producing hundreds if not thousands of hemlock seedlings in a single year.
4) early planning – What was most surprising to citizens involved in the process was the complete lack of planning on the part of Parks. It was this element that spurred us to work as hard on this project as we did. It’s not clear what would have happened had DPAC not taken the initiative and gotten a plan started, but it’s doubtful we would have had as positive outcome as we did.
5) leveraging - a small grant of $10k was turned into a major restoration project worth more than $300k from the US Army. The City was given at no charge (or very small one) a restored parcel – with very little effort on follow-up (see below). A clear demonstration of what remarkable yields a small but propitious investment can produce.
6) use of outside expertise – the use of an outside landscape architectural firm brought skills, experience and expertise to bear that Parks does not have. Outsiders bring fresh perspectives to the job that are frequently quite useful.
What did we do wrong?
1) invasives on the margin – like so many projects in the Park, invasives covering the hillside just west of the 500 area were not removed. As a result, their seed production dropped on the previously “clean” 500 area, contaminating the project.
2) weed control fabric – although the cells seemed like a good idea, the placement of weed control fabric has only hindered removal of the weeds invading the cells. For whatever reason (lack of hogfuel?), Himalayan Blackberry has aggressively moved into the cells and grown into the fabric, making it almost impossible to remove entirely. Rather than representing native restoration potential, they’ve become invasive problem areas.
3) poor cooperation between Parks staff, DPAC and outside consultant – from nearly the beginning, there seemed to be very limited input from Parks staff – or at least limited communication of concerns to either DPAC or the landscape architect. The assumption that all of Parks agreed and supported the plan based on the official Parks approval of the plan was not valid.
4) lack of followup – because actual ownership of the property remained in the hands of the Army for several years afterwards, Parks staff was reluctant to perform the much needed followup maintenance that was presumed as part of the plan. This also became an issue when individual volunteers organized their own work parties in the area. Volunteers were told not to do any work in the area because of liability concerns.
Conclusions:
Projects on this type of scale are not easy. They present many logistical, financial and organizational challenges that test the capacity of any organization. The current 500 Area reflects all of the conflicting demands that are on our City Parks staff and budget. Unfortunately, we have more, not fewer of these in our immediate and intermediate future as a Park community. It is mandatory that all parties (Parks administration, local Parks staff, citizen advocates and non-profit groups) sit down in a non-confrontational manner well in advance of the action and hash out groundrules for the restoration process. It takes very little to send a complex process like this sideways. The natural habitat of Discovery Park is threatened. We can’t afford anything less than success. And we as the public, have both the right and responsibility to see to it that it happens.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
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.
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.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, February 14, 2005
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.
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:
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:
Monday, January 10, 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/
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/
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
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!
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? |
Monday, January 03, 2005
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
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 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.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)