© 2002
The Nugget Newspaper
Sisters, Oregon
All rights reserved

Send us an email

Display Advertising
This is a PDF file. View with Adobe Acrobat Reader. 

The contents of the on-line edition of The Nugget represent a selection among the stories that appear in the weekly print edition.

Public weighs in on Metolius project
By Craig F. Eisenbeis

The public seems to have confidence in the Forest Service to make the right choices to manage and protect the Metolius Basin.

Last week, the comment period closed for the Forest Service's draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and the Metolius Basin Forest Management Project shifted into a new phase.

"Most of the feedback has been positive," said project leader Kris Martinson, who noted that more than 150 comments were received.

Now, the Forest Service faces the task of reviewing the comments, a process that the agency will use to help chart its ultimate course and finalize the EIS.

Forest Service silviculturist Brian Tandy said that the review will carefully consider the public input, and "the final decision may be a combination of parts of all the alternatives."

The alternatives are numbered from one to five and range from no action at all (Alternative 1) to selective treatment of up to 12,914 acres of Metolius Basin forest land (Alternative 5).

The "treatment" itself might include mowing, burning, thinning, and logging coordinated to enhance forest health and reduce the risk of wildfire in the Metolius Basin.

Forest Service officials were pleased and perhaps a little surprised that so many of the respondents took the time to offer positive comments on the plan.

In fact, many of the letters began with statements like "You are to be commended," or "Congratulations...."

Bill Burkart, of Black Butte Ranch, was typical of many respondents and said he liked Alternatives 4 and 5.

"I view the other alternatives as a waste of an opportunity to do it right," Burkart said.

The Forest Service is proposing to implement Alternative 4, which would treat approximately 12,648 acres and permit selective removal of trees up to 21 inches in diameter and up to 25 inches for white fir.

Among those who wrote to express reservations about the project, one concern surfaced over and over.

A comment from Norma Funai, an Indian Ford resident, summed it up: Funai emphasized that she supported the project but was concerned about the potential removal of large diameter trees.

According to Martinson, however, Funai took the time to attend a Forest Service briefing in Camp Sherman last month and came away favoring Alternative 4.

Martinson explained that, once people understand the reasons for flexibility in diameter selection, they often come away with a different perspective.

Many of the final decisions on specific trees will be made by Tandy and his coworkers.

"On most stands, you can get the desired reduction without taking trees over 16 inches," he said.

The foresters, however, don't like having arbitrary constraints -- such as inflexible diameter limits -- that hinder their ability to make the choices they feel are appropriate for a particular stand of trees.

Without preconceived limits, Tandy said, "there is the flexibility to make good choices on the trees that you leave."

He gave the example of an 18-inch tree with mistletoe and a dead top growing side by side with a healthy 14-inch tree. The right thing to do, he said, is to cut the larger tree and leave the young, healthy one -- something that would not be possible under Alternative 3, with its 16-inch limit.

Local groups tended to give the Forest Service high marks and have confidence in the agency's judgment.

Roger White, President of the Metolius Recreation Association, gave the project a hearty endorsement.

Martinson said that the Friends of the Metolius were supportive but "nervous about removing large trees."

She went on to say that the Friends, however, recognized there are sometimes good reasons to have exceptions to diameter limits.

She also said they were particularly enthusiastic about opportunities for larch restoration.

Not everyone had positive input.

For example, Clarence Childrey of Camp Sherman called the project a "waste of taxpayer money."

He went on to say, "The Friends of the Metolius do not speak for us here. In fact, if they favor any alternative except Alternative 1 (no action), they are NO friends of the Metolius."

Most people, however, favored some form of management for wildfire prevention, and the plan calls for a very closely monitored process. Martinson agreed with Tandy's assessment that, after review of the comments, the end result might very well be a combination of all the alternatives selectively applied to areas where that particular option would give the best results.

"There was some universal agreement to reducing forest fuels," Martinson said. "Folks that strongly, strongly opposed the project were our typical opponents who always oppose any action. Overall, we're very pleased with the participation and involvement of the entire community."

Tandy said that the project area has already been examined, and "we've made estimates on trees to be removed and what we want left."

He emphasized, however, that only samplings have been conducted and no trees have been marked for cutting. That, he said, will not be undertaken until all the comments have been considered and a final decision has been made.

Back to front page