Dr. Bob Zybach & the Saga of the Elliott Forest Pt. 2

Two links to the podcast:

Dr. Bob Zybach & the Saga of the Elliot Forest Pt. 2 (rumble.com)

Dr. Bob Zybach & the Saga of the Elliot Forest Pt. 2 (youtube.com)

Peer Review of Department of State Lands' (DSL) Elliott State Research Forest (ESRF) Forest Management Plan (FMP)

Executive Summary

Dave Sullivan and Bob Zybach

The Department of State Lands (DSL) recently released and asked for comments on a 365-page Forest Management Plan (FMP) for an Elliott State Research Forest ("the Elliott”). In response, this peer review comments on the scientific research proposed in the FMP.

The principal authors of this peer review have advanced degrees in business and forest science and significant practical experience managing forestlands and private property. Other people have contributed to this peer review and their contributions and qualifications are described in an appendix.

We conclude this plan is misdirected and likely to fail on both economic and scientific fronts. According to our analysis, this misdirection will continue to cost Oregon schools hundreds of millions of dollars, cost local communities hundreds of needed blue-collar jobs, significantly increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire to people and wildlife, and will be unlikely to produce scientific information of value to Oregon landowners, resource managers, and taxpayers.

Here is an outline of the principal topics of concern we address in this review, and our reasons for addressing these concerns:

1. Economic Value: The FMP lacks essential economic facts, such as the forest’s productivity, timber volumes, market value, and potential for improved yields These are crucial for informed management decisions for most forest management plans. For example, multiple methods of evaluating the forest’s productivity suggest it grows at least 60-80 million board feet (mmbf) a year, yet the FMP’s restrictive harvest limit of 17 mmbf per year results in significant millions of foregone income, and at a level unlikely to sustain economic viability. Without comprehensive economic analyses, the plan fails to provide a clear picture of the forest's economic potential and management implications.

2. Income: Carbon Credits: DSL promotes the sale of carbon credits on the Elliott as compensation for its lack of planned timber sales. This is a fairly recent market option with a volatile economic history, based on unproven scientific assumptions, and for a highly dynamic coastal Douglas fir forest with a documented history of catastrophic wildfires, major windstorms, floods, landslides, and vandalism. The FMP’s carbon sequestration strategies lack a feasible approach for long-term carbon storage in the forest. This aspect requires thorough evaluation, as described by OSU, to ensure it aligns with both ecological sustainability and economic practicality.

3. Triad Research Design: Jerry Franklin’s critique highlights the lack of practical value for other forested lands, particularly private ones, in the triad research design proposed in the FMP.

4. HCP Modeling: The 2012 ODF Elliott plan had 15 subbasin polygons; the 2017 ORWW Giesy Plan had 25 named creek polygons; OSU subdivided these into 125 polygons, but with only three acronyms and six assigned colors; USFW currently has over 9000 polygons. The Giesy plan scientifically tests HCPs and literature review suggests fish prefer sun. The FMP relies almost entirely on untested modeling and assumptions without field validation.

5. Cultural Landscapes: The 550 miles of roads and trails are integral to the Elliott’s second-growth forest, which emerged after wildfires, settler fires, grazing, and plantations. The absence of old-growth and the impact of plantations on biodiversity, including ESA-listed species, are overlooked. Coho salmon are not threatened in the Elliott, and marbled murrelets have only minor seasonal use.

6. Wildlife Biology: The FMP prioritizes superficial modeling and politicized regulations over actual population data, species adaptability, and historical populations. Spotted owl populations are declining, while barred owls are a better ecological fit, but are being considered for sytematic removal. Coho production is adequate, and marbled murrelet use is limited and seasonal.

7. Wildfire Risk: The FMP ignores the increasing risk of catastrophic wildfire created by artificial "reserves," purposeful retention of dead trees and downed woody debris, and the insufficient proposed harvest levels. The documented history of the Elliott is the same as the rest of the Douglas Fir Region in that catastrophic-scale wildfires will occur when fuels accumulate to sufficient levels, and the likelihood of wildfires greatly increases over time unless fuels are actively managed. The creation of passively managed reserves and retention of snags as outlined in the draft FMP will almost certainly result in a major wildfire at some point in time and likely threaten the communities to the west of the Elliott, from Reedsport to Coos Bay.

8. [Trust?] Law: The FMP does not adequately analyze the legal requirements of the Common School Fund or align with these requirements, raising concerns about its compliance with fiduciary obligations.

9. Public Involvement: Public participation has not been previously involved in planning process; solicited input was ignored. How will current process address this problem?

10. Climate Change: Climate has been about the same for coastal Oregon for hundreds of years [Cite]. There is no documented information that it is changing in any significant way at the current time. Douglas fir, western hemlock, and Sitka spruce are principal conifer species and red alder and bigleaf maple are primary species and all have adopted to a wide range of climatic conditions over time and current geographical ranges. There is currently no pressing need to assume, or plan for, management problems related to a changing climate for the foreseeable future

Addendum: Alternative Proposals. ; Giesy research design needs public consideration. Landscape scale (subbasins) needed for disturbance, wildlife population monitoring, fire management, and meaningful research.