House approves transferring management of Elliott State Forest to state lands as research forest

The Oregon House on Wednesday passed Senate Bill 147, a bill that renames the Elliott State Forest as the Elliott State Research Forest, shifts management responsibilities from the Oregon Department of Forestry to the State Land Board with Department of State Lands (DSL) administration, and decouples the property from the Common School Fund.

Sponsor remarks and purpose Representative Levy presented the bill as a package to set a long‑term governance and funding structure for the Elliott, emphasizing research objectives and a new funding account to support operations. “Senate Bill 147 renames the Elliott State Forest to the Elliott State Research Forest, transfers management responsibilities from Oregon Department of Forestry to the State Land Board, clarifies management authorities, decouples the Elliott from the Common School Fund and establishes the Elliott State Research Forest account,” Representative Levy said on the floor.

Nut graf: The measure remakes the legal and fiscal framework for management of a high-profile state forest. Supporters framed it as providing a durable governance structure and funding stream for research and stewardship; opponents said it abandons a longtime funding connection to the Common School Fund, reduces active management, lowers timber harvests, increases wildfire risk and reduces county and tribal input.

Points raised in debate - Funding and harvest levels: Opponents argued the plan would drastically reduce timber harvests compared with historic harvest levels (speakers cited restoring harvest to 1989 levels as an alternative) and said that the new management approach could require general‑fund support or otherwise reduce revenues to schools and local services. - Wildfire and public safety concerns: Several members warned that limited active management could elevate fire risk and that more local and county involvement was needed to reduce fuels and maintain roads and trails. - Local control and stakeholders: Critics said the plan insufficiently engaged counties, tribes and local communities; supporters said the State Land Board and DSL would carry out research‑oriented management and that the approach balances conservation, research and limited sustainable harvest.

Outcome and next steps The House recorded final passage of Senate Bill 147. Floor opponents asked for different management priorities and greater local control; supporters and the joint ways and means committee argued the bill implements a compromise to secure funding and a legal framework for research operations. The measure’s enactment will require DSL operational planning, potential permitting actions and future interactions with state and federal agencies for forest management and any timber or carbon projects.

Ending: Lawmakers who opposed the bill said they would continue to press for changes in future sessions; supporters emphasized the research and long‑term stewardship goals and budgeted funding flow to operate the newly named research forest.