Measure 64 not clear cut

If Oregon voters approve the "anti-clearcut" measure on the November ballot, they may get more than timber harvest restrictions. But precisely what they will get seems to depend on whom they ask.

The cornerstone of Measure 64 is the ban on clearcutting on federal, state and private forestlands in Oregon.

Between Sisters country and the Idaho border, the legislation would require that a minimum of "60 well-distributed trees that measure at least 10 inches diameter" be left on any acre of a harvest unit.

"Many, many, many stands harvested here don't meet that criteria before you start," said Ted Young, Bend area member of the Society of American Foresters. "An ideal, mature stand of ponderosa pine has 25 to 30 (trees) per acre."

Young is also the administrative forester for Crown Pacific in Bend.

Environmental Coordinator Rod Bonacker of the Sisters Ranger District agrees with Young's description of east side forests.

"Very few old growth ponderosa pine stands east of the Cascades would have that many trees," Bonacker said. "They'd be called clearcuts (under the measure)."

Bonacker acknowledges that although east side stand densities "vary widely by site," the forests in "pure ponderosa pine country near the Metolius and in the Ochocos naturally average between 10 and 22 large trees per acre with a few thickets of smaller trees."

Matthew Watkins, a Measure 64 campaigner representing Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics (OLIFE), says the clearcutting "numbers we came up with were based on tree farms."

According to Watkins, eastern Oregon numbers were developed from the Oberteuffer Research and Education Forest outside La Grande.

The 113-acre Oberteuffer Forest was donated to the Oregon State University College of Forestry by Bill and Margaret Oberteuffer in 1994. The property was part of their 240-acre homesite in Elgin, Oregon and is now managed by the OSU Extension.

Extension Forestry Agent Paul Oester was not aware of any figures from the forest that were shared with OLIFE for the campaign.

"I can't speak for Bill Oberteuffer, but as far as the numbers OLIFE says they used to establish (their) guidelines, I didn't supply them with any information," he said.

"We have our own inventory we've done on the property since we got it from Oberteuffer," added Oester. "But as far as I know they don't have any of these numbers."

The Nugget asked Oester if he could manage the Oberteuffer Forest under the 60-tree per acre requirement.

"No I don't believe we could," he stated.

"It doesn't give us enough flexibility for all the situations we might have, (such as) insect and disease (outbreaks)," Oester continued. "We have real concerns with bark beetle problems."

Small clearcuts can be used to manage such infestations.

Oester also has concerns regarding the tree diameter calculations. The measure says that 80 square feet of tree-base area per acre must be occupied by remaining trees, but that trees may never be calculated as larger than 20 inches diameter regardless of their size.

"If we had to manage under (those) guidelines, as trees get larger, sites can only grow fewer trees," he explained. "Once they reach 20 inches in diameter, they are always measured as 20-inch trees, even though they (grow) larger than 20 inches."

Further complications with Measure 64 include the application of state law on federal property.

Bonacker says this won't work for the US Forest Service.

"There is nothing that state legislation can legally apply to federal resource lands," he said.

Approximately 74 percent of the land in Deschutes County is federal property, according to Bonacker.

To exactly which lands does the initiative apply? Young says, "It applies to anybody who owns trees, not just timber company land, but all private land (as well)."

The initiative is presented as a re-application of the Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA).

"Our experience with the (FPA) is if you cut trees down for a commercial purpose, the FPA applies," Young said.

Under Young's definition, any private landowner who wants to cut and sell trees off their property would be subject to the measure's restrictions.

Watkins calls Young's statement, "a bald-faced lie."

According to Watkins, the measure "only includes F1 and F2 (zoned) lands governed under the FPA. This is a scare tactic because there (are) a lot of farmers (concerned about the measure)."

Young estimates there are 166,000 private timberland owners in Oregon, with timber industry businesses represented by "no more than a few hundred" of them.

Other provisions of the measure would:

· Ban the harvest of any tree greater than or equal to 30 inches in diameter;

· Require the state to write forest plans for all Oregon forest communities;

· Re-define the terms "clearcut" and "navigable waters;" and,

· Ban the use of chemical herbicides and pesticides on forestlands.

Experts and advocates agree that forestry in Oregon may need an overhaul.

"Clearcutting isn't extremely bad forestry," Bonacker said. "The problem with clearcutting is that we do too much of it and we do it in the wrong places."

"We think forestry is a good thing in Oregon," Watkins said. "But the way it's being practiced is not sustainable, so we're looking for a compromise."

With a total of 49 arguments in the voter's pamphlet, 20 in favor and 29 in opposition, Measure 64 received more submissions than any other measure on the November ballot.