The Continuing Battle Over Management Philosophies on Oregon's Elliott State Forest
June 10, 2025
A forest stands silent while two futures compete for its destiny.
Deep in Oregon's coastal range, the 83,000-acre Elliott State Forest has become the unlikely battleground in a conflict that will shape the future of public lands management across the American West. At stake is a fundamental question: Should forests primarily capture carbon or produce timber?
The answer carries profound implications for rural communities, climate policy, and the future of public education funding in Oregon.
A Precedent-Setting Transformation
In October 2024, Oregon approved a precedent-setting plan, making it only the second state nationwide to dedicate an entire state forest to carbon storage. Under this 40-year agreement, Anew Climate will manage the forest primarily for carbon sequestration rather than timber production.
Sequestration represents a dramatic departure from the forest's historical purpose.
From 1960 until 1990, The Elliott sold 50 million board feet of timber annually, generating hundreds of millions of dollars for Oregon schools while supporting over 400 rural jobs. Since the Department of State Lands took over management in 2017, critics claim the forest has lost more than a million dollars annually while funding just two road maintenance positions.
Brett Brownscombe, Elliott State Forest transition director, frames the carbon credit approach as finding a middle ground in a polarized debate: "Wouldn't it be nice to show that a middle ground is working somewhere on a large forest landscape like the Elliott? That's where the Elliott could punch above its 80,000-acre weight."
But critics see something else entirely. The state wants a new policy to redirect resources from rural communities and schools.
Major Partners Withdraw Support
The controversy intensified when Oregon State University and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians withdrew from the project in 2023. Their reasoning was clear: the carbon storage scheme severely limited research opportunities and traditional forest uses.
OSU's president stated that "monetizing the carbon within the Elliott State Research Forest in its early stages would limit or interfere with the ability of researchers to conduct meaningful research."
This withdrawal raised serious questions about the plan's compatibility with multiple forest values.
The Carbon Economics Question
Proponents argue the forest could store up to 435,000 additional metric tons of carbon dioxide over 40 years, equivalent to removing about 100,000 gas-powered cars from roads for a year. This carbon sequestration could generate nearly $9 million in carbon markets over the next decade.
But these projections face skepticism from multiple angles.
The voluntary carbon market lacks robust regulations to ensure each ton of carbon dioxide released by a polluter is genuinely offset by absorption elsewhere. Critics point out that after the 40-year contract expires, landowners could log extensively or convert the land to other uses. In the case of the Elliot, the people of Oregon are the landowners.
More fundamentally, current carbon prices may be insufficient to drive meaningful change. For carbon projects to effectively incentivize long-rotation forestry and significantly reduce harvesting, experts suggest carbon prices need to reach $30 to $60 per ton, several times today's average cost of about $6.50 per credit in voluntary markets.
Rural Communities and Traditional Values
For timber-dependent communities surrounding the Elliott, the shift toward carbon credits represents more than an abstract policy change. It signifies a potential end to a way of life.
Dr. Bob Zybach, an environmental scientist advocating for a return to 1989 harvest levels, proposes the "Oregon Giesy Plan" as an alternative. This approach would maintain minimum harvests of 50 million board feet annually while preserving 550 miles of forest roads for multiple uses. Proceeds would be directed to K-12 schools as historically intended.
The Giesy Plan focused on research and education, which fit perfectly into OSU’s obligations as a land-grant university. Research focused on real-life problems and regulations while directly involving Oregon school kids and landowners in the process.
Republican legislators have responded with bills (HB 3103 and HB 3508) designed to establish sustainable harvest levels and improve active forest management across Oregon's forests.
Meanwhile, the plan does make specific accommodations for tribal interests, including provisions for harvesting red cedar for traditional uses like canoe building and plank housing. It also allows for controlled burning and habitat development for culturally significant foods.
Transparency Concerns
Beyond the substantive debate over forest management philosophies, transparency issues have further complicated the controversy. The state allegedly hid critical financial information, management plans, and data models during the plan's development, which Dr. Sullivan's investigation revealed.
Dr. Dave Sullivan, an emeritus Professor of Business at OSU, sued the state over the management of The Elliot. In a statement, Dr. Sullivan said, “The proposed plan is little more than an elaborate ruse to convert the Elliott into a de facto wilderness. It appears the plan will shortchange the Common School Fund, something I find morally reprehensible.”
Questions have also emerged about potential conflicts of interest. Geoff Huntington, who played a central role in transforming the Elliott Forest management approach, moved between positions at OSU and the Department of State Lands and eventually became Governor Kotek's natural resources advisor, raising concerns about the political dimensions of the policy shift.
A Microcosm of Larger Tensions
The Elliott Forest controversy represents something larger than a dispute over 83,000 acres of Oregon forestland. It embodies the fundamental tension between climate mitigation strategies and traditional resource-based economies.
The legislature has set the path with the passage of SB 147. Either the State of Oregon will successfully create a world-class research forest for carbon sequestration, or local communities will suffer more severe conditions conducive to larger and widespread wildfires due to an experimental environmental scheme.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Rob Taylor has been an activist for over 30 years and was the Winner of the 2024 Don Mcintire Award for Excellence in Grassroots Political Activism. Rob’s podcast is on Facebook, Rumble, X, and YouTube @robtaylorreport, or visit the website at www.RobTaylorReport.
Related Posts:
Dr. Bob Zybach & the Saga of the Elliott Forest Pt. 2
The President of OSU Declines Management of The Elliott State Forest — Rob Taylor Report
Three Protests Opposing the Wind Turbines Off the Southern Oregon Coast — Rob Taylor Report
BLM releases Western Oregon Tribal Fairness Act Environmental Assessment — Rob Taylor Report
Interior Announces $28.4 Million In Payments To Western Oregon Counties — Rob Taylor Report
BLM ~ Jordan Cove Energy Project Planning Document Available For Public Review — Rob Taylor Report