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.

Today, I think rather than me simply telling you about what I'm working on, we should try something more engaging. I'd like you to try to put yourself into my shoes, and experience a situation that I have been struggling to understand over the past few weeks.

Recently, an ongoing ecological thinning project in the Cedar River Municipal Watershed (CRMW), which is designed specifically to accelerate the development of old-growth characteristics, has been criticized rather sternly by an environmental group. Now the same organization is attacking a proposed ecological thinning project. I am trying to understand why.

The Habitat Conservation Plan that governs the management of the CRMW prohibits commercial logging. Under the HCP, the watershed is managed specifically for provision of habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species. Many of these species do best in old-growth habitats. Consequently, the HCP calls for preservation of existing old-growth in the watershed, and active forest management in simplified second-growth stands in order to accelerate the development of old-growth conditions. Seattle Public Utilities has assembled an interdisciplinary staff of natural resource managers and scientists to develop forest restoration treatments in the interest of accelerating the development of old-growth forests. Their plans are built entirely on the scientific understanding of forest development and old-growth conditions. These plans are reviewed by nationally and internationally recognized experts. Maintaining and creating old-growth habitat drives the planning process every step of the way.

Why would an environmental advocacy group with the mission to "... preserve, protect, and enhance the natural environment" challenge forest-restoration efforts designed specifically to enhance the development of old-growth forest conditions? The two sides are working toward the same goal -- or, at least, they say they are.

I guess the question I am really struggling with is: How will we reestablish trust between the public and land-management agencies? In the case of the Cedar River Municipal Watershed, a Habitat Conservation Plan, a legal agreement with the federal government, does not appear to go far enough to restore the trust of some groups. The best available scientific research does not seem to help either. What will it take to restore trust, end the debate, and move forward with forest restoration? After you've thought about this question, share your answer! We can't effect change if we don't communicate with each other.