Today marks the point in my thesis research when I begin constructing, de-constructing, and analyzing the immense mountain of spatial data I’ve collected in the past month and a half. The question remains the same: What is the best option the state of Oregon has to maintain the Elliott State Forest’s economic obligations to the Common School Fund while adhering to conservation mandates by the federal government? I’ve consolidated my research into one of the options I believe would be the most successful answer to this question, and part one (of this three-part post series) will explain my answer to this question.
*All acronyms explained below chart
Before continuing, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the Elliott State Forest’s situation. First, we must understand the likely candidates of options for the ESF outlined in Oregon Dep. of State Land’s 2014 Elliott State Forest Alternatives Project Report. The following chart contains mostly information drawn from this report while some of the content is my own:
Option |
Overview |
Pros |
Cons |
1 Business as Usual |
The ESF will continue to lose money until the ODF can work with the federal agencies NMS and USFWS to come up with a mutually agreeable HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan), which details the nitty gritty’s of harvesting in areas with species protected under the ESA (Endangered Species Act). | IF the ODF can work their way around the plethora environmental restrictions though, this plan could restore timber harvesting (albeit at a much lower capacity than previous levels) on the ESF and fulfill its economic obligations to the CSF. | The HCP’s required to restart timber harvesting is not likely to be completed in a timely manner, and the ESF will continue to lose money during this time period, which could last for years. |
2 New Private Ownership |
This is the option that very nearly happened earlier this year. The ESF will be sold off in entirety to private companies and interests for a lump sum of money. | Arguably the best option to generate immediate revenue for the CSF. Timber jobs and the industry will benefit. | Critical habitat loss, species die-off’s, watershed degeneration, and loss of environmental services such as clean air, water, and carbon sequestration make this option a highly controversial one. Public lands are often under-valued when sold off to private companies, and the ESF will be no exception. Immense public outcry. |
3 New Public Ownership – Buyout |
This scenario is essentially the opposite of the process that created the forest. The ESF will be transferred back to federal ownership via a total or partial buyout of the land. The top contenders for federal acquisition of the ESF are the federal land management agencies BLM, USFS, and USFWS. | Only the Umqua River separates the ESF from the southern border of the Siuslaw NF, so the ESF would be comparatively more easily and cost-effectively accommodated into the Siuslaw NF management framework. Revenue generated from the sale of the ESF can be re-invested into sustainable efforts such as renewable energy projects across Oregon. The ESF’s natural resources will remain relatively untouched as opposed to option 2, and its eco-system services will also remain intact. | Need to find an interested federal or tribal entity to fund the buyout. Not possible if no interested parties exist. Timber harvesting would be non-existent or minimal compared to previous levels. |
4 New Public Ownership – Land Exchange |
The ESF will be traded to the federal government for federal lands with fewer sensitive species and environmental legislation. | All the benefits of option 3. The CSF will continue to have trust fund lands to harvest timber from. | Need to find an interested federal or tribal entity to fund the land exchange. Not possible if no interested parties exist. The CSF will continue to rely on timber extraction for generating revenue instead of alternative options like renewable energy. |
Acronyms (in alphabetical order)
- BLM: Bureau of Land Management
- CSF: Common School Fund
- ESA: Endangered Species Act
- ESF: Elliott State Forest
- HCP: Habitat Conservation Plan
- NF: National Forest
- NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service
- ODF: Oregon Dep. of Forestry
- SLB: Oregon State Land Board
- USFS: United States Forest Service
- USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Now that we have a baseline understanding of the pros and cons of the most likely scenarios of the ESF’s future, let’s dig in to where I stand in this debate.
Option 1 is obviously not working. The HCP’s that the SLB must create will take years to complete, if ever. The SLB will need to work with both the NMFS and USFWS to complete this. While this is what the ESF has been doing for the past few years, option 1 will likely do the most damage to the CSF without the real promise of achieving the intended goals.
Option 2 is an important consideration and one that cannot be overlooked. The ESF holds immense economic value in its timber resources alone, and Oregon’s public schools would in theory benefit greatly from option 2’s quick revenue generation. Furthermore, the ESF can be broken up into distinct-use areas (fish, reserve, production, timber) to protect the most ecologically valuable areas. But what is perhaps the most crucial consideration in the option 2 debate is not the well-acknowledged drawbacks to local wildlife and eco-system services, rather what option 2 means for the future of public lands in Oregon, the Pacific Northwest, and the USA in general. The sale of the ESF – a public land for public good – to a private entity in the “environmentally-conscious” state of Oregon will set a precedent for future public land use (and abuse), and I argue that if similar levels of economic revenue could be achieved on ESF lands regardless of ownership status, it would be better to keep the land public than private.
Options 3 and 4 give rise to a new set of challenges, that if overcome, will likely best balance the multiple-use nature of the ESF while contributing to other sustainable initiatives in Oregon. The nearby Siuslaw National Forest has a great record of balancing multiple-use on its land, and with their close geographic proximity to one another (they’re essentially neighbors separated by the Umpqua River), the Siuslaw is the obvious contender for a buyer of the ESF. In these two options, the ESF will essentially remain intact – with all its wildlife, eco-system services, intrinsic value, etc. – and the CSF can re-invest the revenue in other Oregon projects. Options 2-4 have the potential to indirectly boost Oregon’s renewable energy projects, but only options 3 and 4 can achieve this same result while maintaining the ESF’s ecologically integrity in the long-run. Options 3 and 4 set a different precedent from option 2: Oregon will decidedly stand against the current assault on public lands – arguably the most valuable public good of the USA.
While option 3 alone would be much simpler than option 4, it is unlikely that the USFS, a government agency already starved of its funding amidst budget cuts and increasing expenses in wildfire firefighting, could mount the $200+ million that the ESF would sell for. Instead, a combination of options 3 and 4 is likely to appeal more to federal entities; indeed, that’s exactly what is happening in Minnesota between the Superior National Forest and the Minnesota School Trust Fund! Take a look at this map, which details the current project between the state and federal entities in Minnesota.
The combination of options 3 and 4 provides the greatest balance of economic return to the CSF and ecological and eco-system benefit to the state of Oregon, while still maintaining public ownership of the Elliott State Forest.
Obviously, there is much still left to discuss regarding this matter, and parts 2 and 3 will dive more into the following questions:
- Which federal lands will be exchanged for which ESF lands?
- Where should the CSF re-invest its new monetary assets?
Juliana Prendergast says
This situated context is so interesting. I had no idea this was happening in Oregon. There are so many different players in the Elliott Forest’s future that I would’t expect making the whole situation more complicated.