Oregon State University and the Department of State Lands agreed in February 2019 to produce a research and management plan for the Elliott State Forest by the end of that year. The proposed plan was supposed to focus on “key conservation values,” with the second “key value” being “a carbon sequestration program.”
Nearly five years later, in November 2023, OSU President Jayathi Murthy told the department that the university would be terminating its agreements regarding research and management of the Elliott. OSU said the primary reason for this decision was the university’s “significant concerns” regarding the department’s “intent” to move forward with a scheme by the department to use the forest to store carbon and then sell credits instead of actively managing for jobs and income.
Murthy’s decision to terminate the agreement came just over a year after an August 2022 email from OSU’s Forestry Dean Thomas DeLuca to the department and the State Land Board listed several reasons why OSU opposed a carbon-crediting scheme. DeLuca said the credits would pose a “serious financial risk,” would increase the cost of managing the forest and that it would be difficult over the long term to meet the sales requirements.
Three days before Murthy’s decision to pull out of the agreement, the Department of State Lands circulated a confidential report that stated the Elliott might not qualify for the carbon market – and even if it did, credits would likely generate less than $1 million per year and 20% of that amount would go to administering the program.
Nevertheless, the department recently announced plans to continue their efforts to sell carbon credits rather than logs from the Elliott.
The Elliott grows about 70 million board feet of timber a year and has a well-documented history of catastrophic wildfires, windstorms, floods and landslides. Less than 1% of the forest is old growth, more than 40,000 acres are in industrial plantations and the remainder is made up of mature trees grown following major wildfires in 1868 and 1879.
From 1960 until 1990, the Elliott sold 50 million board feet of timber a year, producing hundreds of millions of dollars for Oregon schools and more than 400 rural taxpaying jobs. There also were no wildfires during that time. Since the Department of State Lands took over management in 2017, the forest has lost more than a million dollars a year and only funded two road maintenance jobs, with an ever-increasing likelihood of catastrophic wildfires due to the increasing amount of unmanaged fuels growing every year.
An example of the ephemeral nature of carbon sequestration related to the sale of carbon credits is shown by the active Shelly Fire in northern California, which has burned more than 15,500 acres. A July 19 report about the fire included a map that outlined 11,000 acres of burned forest owned by Ecotrust Forest Management in Portland that had been used to sell carbon credits.
So, what happens next? Will money be returned to investors? Will the dead trees be salvaged or left in place to rot or burn again?
These are key questions that need to be considered and that the Department of State Lands hasn’t answered, according to Oregon State University.
The plan to sell carbon credits from the Elliott trees has already resulted in a significant amount of time and cost to Oregon taxpayers. Yet, there are no indications that carbon markets are stable, and even if credits could be sold, their value would be very low in comparison to traditional timber sales. The Elliott was created to help fund schools through timber sales and as a working forest. For two generations, it has done both and could continue to do so but not by selling carbon credits.
“An example of the ephemeral nature of carbon sequestration related to the sale of carbon credits is shown by the active Shelly Fire in northern California, which has burned more than 15,500 acres. A July 19 report about the fire included a map that outlined 11,000 acres of burned forest owned by Ecotrust Forest Management in Portland that had been used to sell carbon credits.”
Of note, that particular tract of forest was intensively high graded in the previous century by the first industrial landowner. Upon its sale a couple decades ago to a new industrial landowner, they realized they had been sold a bad bill of goods, and high graded the land further before selling to EFM. All local knowledge in the timber region of Siskiyou County California.
The new landowner very proactively initiated ecological thinning of small diameter trees, mastication of ladder fuels, and creation of road and ridge top fuel breaks. It was a far cry from passive forest management, and actually did create a lot of jobs in the local area. The burn severity within ownership, viewed within the USFS BAER Team burn severity data, indicates a very mixed severity patchy wildfire.
The Shelly Fire most likely resulted from a PCT hiker abandoning a campfire. It started on a day with zero clouds in the sky, in a remote are accessible only by the PCT, or a very long hike through the EMF ownership. The real culprit on the Shelly Fire isn’t carbon credits or a landowner willing to actively restore a forest while trying to make a few dollars from it, it was from careless ignorant humans in the forest, and ever expanding type of wildlife.
Anon: Thanks for this background. Very helpful, but also shows the ephemeral nature of storing carbon in a tree. At some point people will realize that this is a racket that has zero impact on the global climate, in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see what EcoTrust does next with these trees — and if prior management actions have affected mortality or mitigation costs. My thought remains that people start fires every day everywhere they go and it doesn’t matter — except legally — if they are an arsonist, a careless smoker, using electricity to pump water, or building a campfire on a windy day. What matters are the types, distribution, and volumes of nearby fuels that have largely been responsible for the magnitude and severity of western wildfires the past 30+ years.
Bob, you’re arguing against your own side here. You regularly push for active management, but as Anon pointed out Ecotrust has actively managed their ground. So instead you argue that they are still responsible for fire loses because the ownership had a carbon project on it?
A contrast is Sierra Pacific Industries, the last old school timber company in inland CA. They practice intensive evenage management and lose acres to wildfire ever year. And yes, they sell carbon on the state markets too.
Local foresters know that log markets in CA are highly disfunctional. I would love to see things work like they did in the 1980s, but until then I won’t judge landowners who look for revenue beyond logs.
A good forester doesn’t judge ground he hasn’t walked firsthand. I’d suggest you think of this before you judge ownerships you’ve never visited.
If I’m reading Bobs response ( I certainly am not speaking on his behalf, just my dos centavos), he is saying all the carbon initiative is just transitory, based on the natural progression of succession. That’s what I believe, even though several of my forester friends are delving (more than that) into carbon and making a killing!
And, how long can a forest stand be thinned? Species dependent, but some rotations (if you are a timber grower) are short. Also, “thinning” is the savior of mid to late seral stands (in the public eye), even though it can be quite late in stands productivity/longevity. If’n I’m growing timber, culmination of mean annual increment is a real thing! And, stand productivity depends upon cubes, as well as carbon…..
My take anyway…..
Hi Big Pondo: I usually try and avoid responding to pseudonyms, but you have made a few errors in your assumptions. First, “active management” does not mean “fire-proof.” If an area has been clearcut and broadcast burned prior to being exposed to a wildfire, that is one thing — but if active management has largely been restricted to weeding and trail maintenance, then wildfire risk is different. Fuels burn. Your own mention of Sierra Pacific illustrates the point.
To suggest that I’m unfamiliar with the different ownerships “I’ve never visited” is silly. To say I am “judging them” is nonsense. The type of ignorant claim that makes me avoid you unknown lurkers for the most part.
Finally, when “anon” provided information that the EcoTrust tract had been actively managed during that ownership, my response was: “It will be interesting to see what EcoTrust does next with these trees — and if prior management actions have affected mortality or mitigation costs.” No idea how you can construe that as “arguing against my own side,” but maybe that’s why you choose to be nameless when making your assertions.
The assertion that it is irrelevant how a fire starts is entirely backwards.
Just as the more extreme enviro side want everything in the forest treated like humans do not exist, this mentality is the same – fires now have consequences (as you’ve happily pointed out with the recent smoke/health modeling paper shared). This isn’t 1700,1800, 1850, 1900, 1920, 1930…it is 2024.
Fires have real impacts on people, and unlike natural lightning fires, human ignited fires tend to be at the worst times, with the worst outcomes (see: 2024 Park Fire in Butte and Tehama, Shasta, and Plumas County, CA, the 4th largest fire ever, started by arson, and largest arson fire in modern state history).
The Shelly Fire benefited from days of highly moderated fire behavior, aggressive attack, and…..
Being surrounded on many sides by past naturally ignited lightning wildfires within wilderness and non-wilderness USFS land within the Klamath region, and then an area of active forest management nearest the population center of the valley.
Everything carbon-credit oriented about that fire and ownership is an afterthought and a non-sequitur. A dumb human, who started a dumb fire, at a bad time, is what matters here. An ownership trying to do right after many others didn’t, and trying to make a dollar from it, instead of relying upon grants and tax dollars solely. Of the entire carbon credit project, who is to say it is nullified? The Shelley fire likely only impacted ~15% of the entire project.
Hi Anon: There are nearly 8 billion “dumb humans” on the planet, and they all use or depend on fire most days. Good luck keeping them under control! Lightning is usually seasonal in known locations during fire season. You need fuel and a lack of control for a wildfire. Weather and topography are other constraints. You are entitled to your own opinion, but it would be more credible coming from a known source.