Does one agency have the right to decide that timber production will be the leading use of Oregon's state forests?

I raise this question because a few months ago, the Oregon State Board of Forestry proposed a rule which would make commercial cultivation and logging the leading purpose of Oregon state forests. Industry advocates wanted to change the current multiple use purpose to a timber dominant purpose and to do it through the back door, through board order rather than through legislative deliberations. All of a sudden, timber production would become the paramount objective. The whole idea was to end-run what the Legislature has said state forests will be used for.

State law already determines the purposes for state forests ­ namely water protection, wildlife habitat, recreation, timber production and other values all set out as equals. So, it is not appropriate for the Board of Forestry to redefine the purpose through an administrative rule. Some observers think the industry-dominant perspective on the board is coming out ­ trying to do something through a policy change that it couldn't get through the Legislature.

As a former state senator, I've been through a number of controversies over appointments to the Board of Forestry. The board is
appointed by the governor, but members are confirmed by the Senate. The State Board of Forestry has a long history of being part and parcel of the timber industry. It wasn't until the 1970s that a member from outside the industry was even allowed on the board. In recent years, Govs. Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber brought in people from non-timber backgrounds.

Oregon state forests cover 789,000 acres. The largest areas are the north coastal Tillamook and Clatsop State Forests. Other major areas are the Elliott, the Santiam and the Sun Pass state forests. Smaller segments include more than 24,000 acres in Lane County.

Most state forests were privately held land before the Depression. In the mid-1930s, tax delinquencies rose to 43 percent in Clatsop County, 45 percent in Tillamook County and 65 percent in Curry County. Counties could not afford liability for foreclosed, logged forest lands. So the state bailed out counties by accepting land transfers. The Tillamook burn area was reforested in the 1940s by community groups from around the state, and a statewide bond of $25 million paid for forest rehabilitation.

We wouldn't be talking about this proposal if not for the Tillamook burn, and more significantly the fact that forests form the burn are
achieving maximum commercial value. We're about to see a major logging operation there. I think the industry looked at the purpose rule as a way of getting into the burn without many legal roadblocks.

On Aug. 26, 1997, I attended one of a series of public hearings held to gather testimony around the state concerning the proposed rule. Since I think the purpose of the state forests should not solely be timber production, I took the time to go to Roseburg, which was the site of the regional hearing closest to Eugene.

The Roseburg hearing was attended by approximately 60 people, of whom about 50 were connected with the wood products industry ­ people who run mills, people who run log trucking operations, cruisers of timber. These people were very open about the fact that they wanted the rule so the purpose of state forests would be timber production.

Among those remaining, about five were from Northwest Steelheaders, a group of sport fishermen, and several of them testified that this rule would be bad from the standpoint of fish habitat. Francis Etherington of Umpqua Watersheds was among the few to emphasize flood control and wildlife protection.

One negative consequence of the proposed rule would be the impact on foresters who work to balance the needs of wildlife, recreation and industry. It's difficult to blend these things if the State Department of Forestry has said through the chain of command that the purpose is timber production. A forester might think we need to protect stream corridors where there are devastating losses of fish habitat. If he's told that his job is to get the cut out, that will have a chilling effect on his notion to balance several needs. A retired state Department of Forestry employee at the hearing said the rule would put undue pressure on foresters in their work. Once a policy came down from on high, the forester on the ground would have the logging company bringing up the rule time after time.

Legally and politically, I think this proposal will fail. The bad part is that the board proposed it, that it got as far as it did, and that they may get something by way of compromise. The good part is that an issue few people had noticed is now in the news. With public
discussion, we're more likely to get an outcome in the public interest.

Since the regional hearings, a dramatic event occurred. Kitzhaber personally appeared before the Board of Forestry and asked it to rethink this whole proposal. In response, the board appointed a task force. And I think that the public testimonies and the governor's concern actually did result in the board completely rethinking this issue.

The Board of Forestry will meet on Jan. 7, 1998. This will be an important moment for interpreting our purpose over time. As Oregon grows in population and the land base stays the same, we will be looking at state forests in a different way. We'll see them more as recreational lands, possibly as state parks not simply as tree farms. Part of the purpose will be to provide replication of certain types of habitat that are gone, and to satisfy public needs such as the need for solitude and quiet. In 1941, the Oregon Legislature established that state forests were to be managed "for the greatest permanent value to the state." The Legislature should continue to define the purpose to ensure that environmental values are part of the equation.

Send comments to David Gilbert, Chair, Board of Forestry, Oregon Department of Forestry, 2600 State St., Salem, Ore., 97310.

Pete Sorenson, former State Senator, is a Lane County Commissioner.

Reprinted on this web site with permission.