JOHN A. KITZHABER
Governor
FEDERAL FOREST ROADS POLICY
January 22, 1998
The United States Forest Service and the Clinton Administration have announced a new
policy direction governing the nation’s forest roads. I anticipate wide support for much
of the proposal, although there are some controversial aspects as well.
It calls for new investments in road maintenance and upgrading, which will not only
protect the investment in our rural transportation system, it will provide a critical boost to
species protection and to our salmon restoration efforts. There is currently a $10 billion
backlog in needed road maintenance and reconstruction. Sixty percent of Forest Service
roads nationally are not presently maintained up to applicable environmental and safety
standards. We have seen a 40 percent increase in recreation use on National Forest lands
in the last 15 years.
The proposal contains real benefits for rural communities. It calls for identifying new
sources of funding for our nation’s forest road structure. Communities depend on these
roads not only to move commodities that provide an economic base, but also to aid in the
fight against wildfires. These roads are the backbone of the rural transportation network
and their maintenance is in the interest of all Oregonians.
The Administration’s proposal will help avoid the ongoing battle in Congress over the
forest road budget. We cannot continue to have western communities held hostage by the
annual debate over funding forest roads. A healthy Forest Service roads budget is
necessary to provide needed environmental protection efforts, and to allow continued
management of these forest lands.
The proposal also contains a controversial provision that calls for an 18-month
moratorium on new road construction in roadless areas while a study is undertaken to
examine appropriate policy direction for these areas. Lands covered under the Northwest
Forest Plan are exempted from the moratorium.
I agree with the exemption because the moratorium would run counter to the
commitments we made in adopting the plan. In addition, a prohibition on new roads
could threaten the integrity of the plan itself, in much the same way the salvage rider and
its attempt to open up additional areas to logging and avoid environmental restrictions did
two years ago. I also believe that the environmental risk of exempting Westside forests is
minimal: less than one mile of new road is scheduled to be built in sales to be sold in
Oregon this year. Timber harvest in these areas will avoid old growth.
The issue of how we manage the nation’s roadless areas has become very polarized in
recent weeks. Make no mistake about it: there is much at stake here. I am not willing to
return to the timber wars of the early 1990s. Nor am I willing to have our ground
breaking collaborative efforts on salmon recovery swept away.
The Northwest Forest Plan was put in place a little over three years ago. It set standards
for management of federal forest land that are the among the highest in the world. It is a
regionally based strategy that is a model of the type of planning we ought to be doing
across the country. The plan was a hard fought compromise with a strong scientific basis.
We have made commitments to sensitive species, to our rivers and lakes, to our forests
and to the rural communities in this state. A moratorium or prohibition on new road
construction would violate the commitments of the plan, and would likely threaten its
very survival. Eighty percent of the potential timber harvest from federal forest lands was
set aside by this plan because these acres were needed for protection of species. Less than
twenty percent of western Oregon federal forest land is available for timber harvest.
In Oregon, we honor our commitments to each other and we honor our commitments to
the environment.
Efforts to prohibit new road construction in the forests of western Oregon and
Washington are misguided and I applaud the Administration for recognizing that in the
Northwest we have a sound, scientifically based and court approved forest management
plan in place that addresses the habitat requirements of hundreds of species. Where broad
scale, scientifically supported planning efforts are in place, like the Northwest Forest
Plan, the moratorium should not apply.
I believe there is a reasonable and honorable way to address the issue of roadless area
management:
1. For the forests of eastern Oregon, not covered by the Northwest Forest Plan, the
concept of a moratorium on road construction in roadless areas doesn’t cause me
concern. Under the 11-point strategy we don’t anticipate new roads in roadless areas.
Our proposal calls for ecosystem restoration treatments to begin in areas with broad
public support for the work that needs to be done. We intend to focus first on
building a record of success in less controversial areas.
During the moratorium, a study of limited duration will be conducted to examine the
condition and importance of these roadless areas, and make recommendations on their
future management. I would emphasize that a moratorium on new road construction
does not mean a moratorium on active forest management. We must be able to
address critical ecosystem health concerns in these areas and employ needed actions -this may mean thinning using helicopters, prescribed burning or treatment of noxious
weeds. I am hopeful that the study effort and its conclusions can be folded into the
ongoing regional planning effort of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
Management Project.
2. For Western Oregon forests, I support an exemption from such a moratorium because
we have done the scientific work and have a widely supported large scale plan in
place to protect sensitive species.
3. I ask that the roadless area study be extended to include the area covered by the
Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose of the study must be well defined, and should
include an analysis of species and habitat protection needs in unroaded areas,
particularly in light of our current efforts at salmon restoration. In addition, we
should recognize the adaptive management foundation of the plan, and examine
whether there might be ways to better arrange the pieces of the land allocation pattern
to improve protection for species and potentially enhance acreage in protected status,
provided that we honor our commitment to maintain an adequate land base to assure a
stable supply of timber and other commodities.
The study must have clearly defined goals, a clear process, and must meet a strict
timeline. I suggest that a limit of twelve months be placed on the study. I will not
allow these forest lands to be placed in limbo, and intend to work with the
Administration to assure the study is completed in a timely fashion.
I believe that such cooperative efforts as the Forest Plan and the Oregon Salmon Plan
show how Oregonians can work together to find meaningful solutions. I hope to bring
people together on natural resource issues so that we may find real solutions to these
difficult issues. We do things differently here.