Andrew Larson, Seattle Public Utilities

Andrew Larson works in the Watershed Management Division of Seattle Public Utilities as a forest ecology intern. He is also pursuing graduate studies in Forest Ecosystem Analysis at the University of Washington.

It looks like I'm going be a zombie for Halloween this year. By Friday I won't need a costume; my sleep schedule is doing my makeup.

Today, between three classes and a mountain of homework, I'm meeting with Pete Nelson of Biodiversity Northwest. Like me, Pete has gone back to the University of Washington for a graduate degree, but still maintains ties to the professional world. (I should ask him if he's going to be a zombie for Halloween, too.) Recently, Pete represented Biodiversity Northwest at a tour of ongoing and proposed forest restoration projects in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed (CRMW). He also received a draft management plan for the proposed project he visited during the tour. Pete and his organization provided excellent input on a previous management plan for another CRMW forest restoration project; I'm excited to hear his thoughts after the site visits and a chance to review this draft plan.

My biggest interest in meeting with Pete today is not his specific comments on the forest restoration projects in the CRMW, however. I want to hear his thoughts on one of the major challenges facing forest restoration efforts everywhere: the challenge of reestablishing trust between the public and land management agencies.

The most recent presentation of the University of Washington Denman Forestry Issues Series explored issues in federal land management policy, and featured lectures by Dr. Jerry Franklin, a widely recognized forest ecology expert, and Mark Rey, the Undersecretary of Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. One of the key challenges Dr. Franklin identified is the need to reestablish trust between the public and federal land management agencies, in order to begin to restore the millions of acres of western forests at risk of catastrophic wildfire. Our restoration work at the Cedar River Watershed focuses on accelerating the development of old-growth characteristics, not fuels reduction, but we still face the challenge of earning public trust.

Recently, one of our ecological thinning projects has been criticized by an environmental advocacy group. Even though our ecologically focused management objectives are clearly defined in the Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan, doubt lingers in the minds of some critics. The complaints about our current ecological thinning project hinge on one issue: the size of the trees we are cutting.

When I look at this particular project from the perspective of an ecologist trying to create old-growth structure, the prescriptions make perfect sense. All of the largest, most vigorous trees are being left behind in the thinning. These trees already have the best chance of becoming large old-growth someday. Removing some of their competitors by thinning will free up resources (e.g. light, nutrients, and water), allowing the residual large trees to grow faster. In order to give the residual trees the biggest boost, we need to remove their fiercest competitors. This means thinning some of the mid-sized trees in the stand. If you only remove the smallest and weakest trees, the large residual trees will barely notice a change after thinning. Some of the better competitors have to go if we are actually going to accelerate the development of old growth.

When I put myself in the role of a concerned citizen, though, I can see how our restoration prescriptions could appear suspect. If Seattle Public Utilities is trying to grow large old-growth trees, why are they cutting these mid-sized trees? Won't they become old growth too? How do we know they aren't cutting those mid-sized trees solely to generate revenue?

I think a big part of addressing these types of concerns lies with finding ways to communicate technical scientific information about forest development to the public. Meaningful dialogue about the best options for forest restoration is not going to take place if we can't speak the same language. We can't describe forest restoration in terms of timber volume or log truck loads; those metrics simply do not apply. We need to focus on the ecological processes forest restoration seeks to enhance, and find ways to make the dialogue accessible to all parties.

I'm interested to hear Pete's thoughts on these ideas. I wonder if he casts communication in as important a role as I have here. Perhaps he will point out barriers to reestablishing trust that I have not even remotely considered. Hopefully, we will both come away from this casual lunch meeting with some new ideas about ways to achieve better cooperation between the stakeholders in forest restoration efforts.