Oregon State University is stepping back from a years-long effort to turn the Elliott State Forest into the country’s largest research forest, but state leaders and longtime advocates say they aren’t concerned about the long-term designs to rehabilitate the forest.
The announcement marks another twist in a lengthy story involving the 82,000-acre Elliott State Forest. For more than four years, OSU has worked with the Oregon Department of State Lands on a proposal that would make the Elliott a “world-renowned” research forest to help better understand how climate change is impacting forests, contributing to sustainable forest products while also allowing public access and timber harvesting.
But OSU President Jayathi Murthy announced this week she would not make a recommendation to OSU’s Board of Trustees to authorize the school’s management of the research forest, in what appeared to stall the future of the forest that was set to be created at the start of next year.
OSU’s announcement is the latest development surrounding a public forest that’s been immersed in controversy for more than a decade. It was put on the market for $221 million in 2016 and was the subject of numerous lawsuits from environmental groups years before that, yet ultimately stabilized with a plan to partner with the state’s largest university. The research forest was also intended to study ways to protect threatened species such as the marbled murrelet, coastal coho salmon and northern spotted owl.
Related: Elliott State Forest finds a home for its research facilities
Gov. Tina Kotek and conservation groups that have been at the table for years say they aren’t concerned about the withdrawal. A spokesperson for Kotek said that she was disappointed in the development but confident in the work already underway.
“The Department of State Lands is already working with stakeholders who have been instrumental in this initiative for nearly four years to map out next steps toward fulfilling the vision for establishing the Elliott State Research Forest,” spokesperson Anca Matica said in an email sent to OPB. “The Governor is confident that the forest’s future will include meaningful research by scientists from OSU and other universities.”
‘There’s no reason that we can’t move forward with this plan,’ conservationist says
Bob Sallinger, a longtime conservationist who serves on the appointed board that was supposed to start overseeing the forest in January, said he doesn’t believe OSU’s departure undermines the work.
“There’s no reason that we can’t move forward with this plan,” Sallinger said of the deal ironed out over the past four years. But in a letter to the Oregon State Land Board obtained by OPB, Murthy said the latest plan to use the forest as a research tool falls short of the university’s initial vision. She said her decision to have OSU disengage was driven by several factors, including opposition expressed by the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians.
The Elliott State Forest is located northeast of Coos Bay on the tribes’ traditional lands. The tribes have long supported plans to turn the area into a research forest. But Murthy said they recently “expressed significant concerns” that the proposed management plan doesn’t give the tribes a meaningful role in forest stewardship, and that it doesn’t adequately incorporate Indigenous cultural knowledge or practices.
Coast Range fog settles on the Elliott State Forest near Coos Bay in 2016.
Jes Burns, OPB/EarthFix
Murthy also expressed concern about how much timber the state would harvest from the research forest. Citing an email exchange between the Department of State Lands and the State Land Board, Murthy said the state plans set a specific amount of timber that could be harvested from the forest every year, with minimal year-to-year variation. She said such a plan would harm the forest’s health.
“Further, the proposed research forest was predicated on the realization that forest management would be modified over time as knowledge is gained and understanding is built through research, observation, and collaboration,” Murthy wrote. Even so, Murthy said the university is still committed to working with the state on recalibrating the plan “in a manner that fulfills the vision,” she wrote.
Sallinger said that argument doesn’t hold water. The forest has been unharvested for years, and conversation groups ultimately supported the overall plan, which includes logging up to 17 million board feet from the forest annually.
“We felt the overall ecological benefits were significant enough,” Sallinger said, noting that he didn’t love every aspect of the agreement.
Related: Oregon land board moves forward on Elliott State research forest proposal
State’s future involvement in research forest remains unclear
Oregon Department of State Lands Director Vicki Walker said she was disappointed.
“Let me be abundantly clear: The state remains deeply committed to the vision of an Elliott State Research Forest,” Walker wrote in a statement, adding that the department will continue working with the state land board and tribes on establishing the research forest.
It’s unclear if the department will continue working with OSU on the Elliott State Research Forest, or if it will find another organization that can do forest management and research.
OSU College of Forestry Dean Tom DeLuca said collaboration between the university and the state has broken down over the past month, as state officials tried to tie remaining loose strings by the end of the year. He said he hopes they can find a solution.
“As a college, we’re very interested in the whole concept behind the Elliott,” he said. “The idea of having a research forest, it’s addressing these really important questions around alternative management and creating management strategies that are resilient in the face of climate change… And not just pushing it off to another part of the world, but doing it here, and doing it right.”
Sallinger, who was at loggerheads with the state at times as part of a coalition that sued to stop logging on the forest nearly a decade ago, said OSU’s effort to portray the process as being different than advertised years ago is inaccurate.