by Scott Denburg

Free Press contributor

My what a difference a few months makes. When we most recently reported this issue (in November 1997) it seemed like quite an uphill battle for environmentalists to obtain changes in the Cedar River Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan's proposal to log 36% of the Watershed. Several months later, the picture has changed dramatically. The election of a new mayor and three new Seattle City Councilmembers, along with lobbying by environmental groups and the public, has created a strong likelihood of significantly reducing or ending commercial logging in the Watershed.

For those not familiar with the issue, the Cedar River Watershed is home to 2/3 of Seattle's drinking water and several endangered species. The City, in consultation with state and federal agencies, is in the closing stages of determining a preservation plan for the area. This preservation plan will be created in the form of a 50-year Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). One aspect of this plan will be whether logging should be allowed to raise funds to repair and maintain other areas of the Watershed.

While the battle is just beginning to take shape, indications of the greenward shift are becoming apparant. First, Seattle Public Utilities accepted a proposal to add a no logging alternative to their Environmental Impact Statement, following the request of several new local officials and activists. At the same time, the Sierra Club modified its position to be more preservationist in nature than its initial proposal. Thirdly, environmental groups who support a no commercial logging (hereafter referred to as no-logging) option are beginning to coalesce in an informal alliance.

Why the No-logging Option was Added
The shift towards a no-logging option began with lobbying by local organizations and the public. Several groups, including the Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project, Green Party of Seattle, and Earth First!, began a lobbying campaign to add a no-logging option on the upcoming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Consisting of phone calls, letter writing, and meeting with elected officials, they were able to demonstrate support for their no logging position.

The benefit of having a no-logging option in the EIS is that the City must consider it as an alternative. This means the City must evaluate its pros and cons and allow public review of this option. It also shifts the debate to address what the benefits are of allowing commercial logging in the Watershed. Previously, the City had asserted that the option of logging "up to 36%" allowed consideration for no-logging. But it was questionable how much focus would be placed on the low end of this option.

The response by newly elected officials to the environmentalists' no-logging request was very positive and proved to be instrumental in swaying the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) to add a no-logging option. SPU is in charge of the creation of the HCP. New City Councilmembers Richard Conlin, Peter Steinbrueck, and Nick Licata, responded to the no-logging request by writing SPU and newly elected Mayor Schell.

"We [Conlin, Licata, and himself] jointly sought that addition and I am very pleased to see they have included that option," said Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck with regards to the no-logging option in the EIS. "It's a good start and will give us the necessary analysis to back the case for no-loggging."

The requests by the three Councilmembers and local activists gained momentum when Mayor Schell added his call for a no-logging option. He has become supportive of examining the reduction or elimination of logging in the Watershed. In a recent letter to Seattle Utilities & Environmental Management Committee Chair Margaret Pageler, for example, Schell expressed that he was "very open to future changes in the HCP; in particular, reducing or eliminating logging in the watershed."

Sierra Club Modifies Position
The Sierra Club has taken a position which supports the ending of logging via a phaseout process rather than ending it immediately. Initially, they supported the ending of logging in the Watershed via a 50-year phaseout. This was in comparison to the option Councilmember Margaret Pageler has been pushing which allows perpetual logging of the Watershed. Sierra Club's position has been modified to a more limited logging area which ends over 10 years. Their position was modified because of a combination of "a more detailed internal review of what's going on" and a "policy review that we should not support an alternative which subsidizes as precious a natural resource as water," said Charlie Raines of the Sierra Club. This internal reassessment of the HCP resulted in their new position which ends logging in the Watershed much more rapidly.

The new Sierra Club position has strengthened its preservationist character over their old plan by stating its desire to preserve all old-growth forests and natural habitats, not allowing clear-cuts or cuts that remove more than 40% of trees or volume, and doubling its request for decommissioned roads. In addition to a much speedier phase-out, the new Sierra Club plan allows "thinning no more than 10% of the forest," according to Raines, in contrast to the initial Sierra Club proposal of 30%. Logging during that period "would generate sufficient revenue to pay for the wildlife habitat elements, including road decommissioning."

No-logging Alliance Forms
A third aspect of the greenward shift is the coalescence of several local environmentally conscious groups into a local alliance around the no-logging option. Known as the Protect Our Watershed Alliance (POWA), its plan is to create a campaign to enlarge the proposed 64% ecological reserve to a full 100% ecological reserve. "The goal of this alliance is to bring together various groups who support ending commercial logging. By acting as a single voice we will be able to best represent the no-logging position," said POWA member Peter Nelson.

Twenty people attended the initial POWA general meeting, including six environmental organizations and two members of SPU. The general meeting was an example of a grassroots, low-budget organization. The emphasis of the meeting, which was mainly informational, was that logging in a watershed is a questionable practice. "Allowing four live trees per acre...that's not a forest," said POWA member Erica Kay. Under one alternative in the EIS, four trees per acre is the minimum amount of trees left after logging.

In addition to bringing groups together to form a no-logging campaign, this alliance is seeking to provide SPU assistance in brainstorming better ways to raise money for the HCP. One method would be to nominally increase water rates. The City has stated it would be roughly a $4/year increase for consumers. "For the cost of one latte a year, we have the ability to protect our watershed," said John Reese.

To become involved with this issue, contact the newly formed Protect Our Watershed Alliance (POWA) (206) 632-1656 or powa@scn.org.

To give input to the HCP process, contact Diana Gale, Director of Seattle Public Utilities (206) 684-5851, or Margaret Pageler, Chair of the Seattle Utilities & Environmental Management Committee (206) 684-8807.

Scott Denburg is a masters student studying public policy and environmental affairs at the University of Washington. Contact Scott to get involved with this column at denburg@u.washington.edu or WAfreepress@gmail.com.

NEW Well Informed About What's
Over Our Heads

---

[Home] [This Issue's Directory] [WFP Index] [WFP Back Issues] [E-Mail WFP]

---

Contents this page were published in the March/April, 1998 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1998 WFP Collective, Inc.