please conserve true old-growth stands that are in the forest.
Robert Lee Beschta
06/21/2025
1. The 2025 draft plan mentions the 1993 and 2005 Forest Plans. Although these are summarized on pages 17-18, and mentioned elsewhere in the draft plan, I was unable to find a citation indicating where I might access a copy of them. Surely these would be considered public documents. Thus, are pdfs of these plans available for inspection? If so, how do I access a pdf of each? If not, why not? Transparency is mentioned a number of times in the draft plan and allowing reviewers to see previous plans could be very helpful as they try to understand the current plan.
2. Figure 18 on page 47. I appreciate this figure as it clearly indicates the “age structure” of stands on the Forest by showing the amount of area in various age classes. On page 66, it is indicated that management scenarios were modeled over 125 years. Given this situation, it would be very helpful for reviewers if the “age structure” was also provided at 25, 50, 75, and 100 yrs into the future for the preferred management scenario. Such a figure would show clearly reviewers how the various stand management practices, within the preferred management scenario, are likely to change the overall age structure of the forest over time. Surely this would be an easy addition since the modeling effort provides output in 5-yr time steps. Both of my requests above are for more information. Since you have a draft plan out, I am not asking you change that plan but I am requesting the additional information be made available. This could be done very simply on your website by indicating additional background information has been added to at a designated website.
John Klock
06/22/2025
Thank you for this excellent development plan. Here are my comments: 1. Above all do not make McDonald-Forest a place to park RVs or add more space for them. This is primarily a casual hiking area and not a campground or state park. I know this is not a problem at present ,but please do not make it a problem. We currently have a parking shortage for all automobiles. 2. Allow more volunteers to address your invasive plant crisis 3. Provide interpretation for your oak release thinnings. Many people do not know that oaks are less than 10 percent of their original population. 4. Macdonald Forest 50k is the best run ultramarathon in the Pacific Northwest. Thank you for allowing this fantastic event. 5. All of the trail races at MacDonald Forest benefit numerous high school cross-country teams which is a tribute to the good hearts in the community and the Mac-Dunn Management. 6. Restore after trail runs, especially the MacDonald Forest 50k in muddy conditions. 7. More interpretation of your trees including Giant Sequoia, American chestnut (yes and a good learning tool to discuss American Chestnut blight fungus), and the progeny that were planted with assisted migration 50+ years ago from California forests. 8. No electric bikes. It opens up too many loopholes for abuse and opportunities for negative interactions with hikers. 9. Place your tree species signs higher on trees to avoid being stolen. Thank you for making this a magical place. John Klock
Anonymous
06/24/2025
"First of all I would like to thank OSU for providing and maintaining so many beautiful trails in their forests. Those trails are a valuable local resource. After hiking and biking trails for years, I offer these comments: 1. Keep as much old growth as possible. They are not replaceable in our lifetimes. 2. Do more research rather than cutting for $. It is a welcome change to see a plan to introduce more species. Finding the Mother Tree should be required reading and model for how the forest is managed. Thank you."
Benton Elliott
06/24/2025
I am writing in favor of the College of Forestry leaning into protecting these forest lands for the benefit on our state, country and the world at large. We depend on OSU to take the larger view and make decisions based on science, not on industry pressure and influence. Thank you for doing the right thing here.
Tara Pesterfield
06/24/2025
"As someone who values both Oregon’s natural landscapes and the powerful role education plays in shaping the future of forestry, I want to express my support for the 2025 McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan. The plan states that is was developed through years of collaboration with Tribal partners, faculty, community members, and neighbors and it shows. It balances the complex needs of a changing climate, evolving wood product industries, and the urgent call for biodiversity and long-term resilience. What’s exciting about this plan is how clearly it reinforces McDonald-Dunn’s role as a living laboratory. This forest isn’t just beautiful, it’s functional. It’s a hands-on classroom for future forest and natural resource professionals, a dynamic site for research that serves our whole region, and a place where community members can see real-world forestry in action. I appreciate the transparency and care OSU’s College of Forestry has put into shaping a plan that holds onto what’s working — sustainable harvests, active management, recreation access — while adapting boldly to the needs of our time. I look forward to seeing how this plan helps shape forestry practices not just in Corvallis, but throughout Oregon and beyond. Thank you for the chance to weigh in and for stewarding the forest with such integrity and vision."
Gwendolyn Ellen
06/24/2025
"Stop cutting old growth entirely. Partner more with local native tribes. Plant a diverse variety of native trees and shrubs in certain areas that you maintain forever.
Stop spraying herbicides."
Andrew Meigs
06/24/2025
"Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the 2025 forest management plan. As an OSU faculty member and regular visitor to the forest, I am grateful for the liberal access you provide to this active timberland. I like the way the forest is managed now, appreciate the concern for forest health and productivity in the new plan and look forward to watching how your careful, thoughtful stewardship helps the forest thrive in the next 20 years. I recognize and value the fact that the Mac forest as an active teaching and research forest and fully support the College of Forestry as it moves forward with this next management plan.
Thank you again for the access you allow to the forest. The forest is a gem and a place where I find great comfort.
Andrew Meigs Professor Emeritus CEOAS"
Greg Jacob
06/29/2025
I oppose the current plan to manage the McDonald-Dunn Forest because it still promotes active logging and clearcutting rather than a shift to ecological forest management. The plan will allow clearcutting in 40% of the forest, even up to 80 acres. I see no mention of reducing the burning of logging slash, and even worse the current plan relies on the deleterious effects of herbicide application. Where is the protection of for older trees and stands and where is there a shift to stop the fragmentation of the forest by ignoring watersheds? There is limited accountability and enforcement standards other than the OFPA. My final two comments ask why isn’t there specific language about sequestration of of forest carbon and why is there the promotion of biomass energy as a source of renewable energy, a downright mistruth.
Emily E. Hayden
06/29/2025
As a doctoral candidate pursuing climate research, and a Corvallis resident who loves the McDonald-Dunn Forest, I am reaching out to sharing my significant concerns regarding the draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest.
The irreplaceable value of the forest ecosystem in mitigating the worst impacts of climate change must be considered. Furthermore, the refuge they offer all of the residents of Corvallis cannot be underestimated in these exceptionally difficult times. Following are a some of the most disturbing components of the plan:
Allocating of 40% of the forest in a manner that will result in a significant increase in clearcutting of the forest. The College of Forestry should emphasize stewardship of the forest, not practices that permanently destroy precious ecosystems. I have engaged with the public comment periods, and there is always a push by the public to protect more of the forest, especially the old-growth spaces. The plan intends to designate only 10% of the forest as “late-successional”, which is blatant disregard for the public input. The plan will increase forest fragmentation, severely limiting the ability of the ecosystem to survive. Climate change is the largest issue we are facing as a society, and the plan entirely fails to address this in any meaningful way. What is the point of a large-swath of researchers at OSU, including myself, working toward addressing climate change and its impacts, if a significant portion of OSU is utterly disregarding these questions and making decisions that actively amplify the problem?
There are very few remaining forests on this planet, and they are under extreme risk in the United States from the actions of the federal government. I am exhausted by the onslaught of news about daily attempts to destroy these treasures, and I implore you to consider what is happening in the broader world with regard to this plan.
I urge you to extend the public comment period, and actually implement our thoughts to change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Karin Krakauer
06/29/2025
I am writing to share my concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Here are but a few of the plan’s egregious shortcomings: • It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
We have out of town visitors/ families often, and we usually bring them to hike somewhere in these forests. They always comment as to how fortunate we are to have such great recreational lands so close by. It would be tragic to lose this priceless option, all for profit.
Susan Sanford
06/29/2025
I am writing to share my concerns regarding the OSU draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. At a time when climate change is accelerating, the failure of the plan to address climate-related impacts of industrial forestry practices is especially concerning.
Here are but a few of the plan's other glaring issues: • It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices! • Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values! • Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. • The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest. • The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices! • The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Jo Alexander
06/29/2025
I am writing in opposition to many aspects of the new draft plan. In particular:
Permitting much larger clearcuts (40 to 80 acres!) Language which appears to permit more logging of old-growth trees Downplaying the reality that public opinion is strongly opposed to clearcutting The College of Forestry may own these forests, but we wish them to be managed as a community resource not a source of income for the college and logging contractors.
Mary Fitzpatrick
06/29/2025
Please listen. I am writing to share my concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Here are but a few of the plan’s egregious shortcomings:
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Jennifer Costelow
06/29/2025
I am writing to share my concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Here are but a few of the plan’s egregious shortcomings: • It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area. The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Susan Sanford
06/29/2025
I am writing to share my concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. At a time when climate change is accelerating, the failure of the plan to address climate-related impacts of industrial forestry practices is especially concerning.
Here are but a few of the plan's other glaring shortcomings:
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Brian Wake
06/29/2025
I am writing to share my concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Here are but a few of the plan’s egregious shortcomings:
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Christopher Magel
06/30/2025
I am writing to share my concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Here are but a few of the plan’s egregious shortcomings: Below you will find details from some colleagues of mine that refer to the MacDonald-Dunn Forest. I know plans can change, but continued research, innovation, and future resource management in the face of climate impacts should be prioritized over classic "old school" methods just to create bottom lines (and dollars). The whole point of research is to find new, innovative methods...and minimize effects on wildlife, climate, and recreational use.
Please see those details below and consider taking further action to address these important details:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- • It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices! • Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values! • Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions. • The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest. • The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices! • Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices. • The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity. • The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Daniel Morphis
06/30/2025
I am writing to share my SERIOUS concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Here are but a few of the plan’s egregious shortcomings:
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Jeff Igelman
06/30/2025
As a long time resident of Benton County, supporter of OSU and graduate of the College of Engineering I request that you not approve the Draft Plan for the MacDonald Dunn Forest as written.
Please consider modifying the plan to specifically and in detail provide more protections for old growth trees.
Tracy Cohen
06/30/2025
Dear OSU forest planning team, I am writing to share my concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Here are but a few of the plan’s egregious shortcomings: • It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices! • Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values! • Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions. • The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest. • The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices! • Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices. • The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity. • The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area. The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Carly Lettero
06/30/2025
I am writing to share my concerns regarding your draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Some of my concerns include:
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. I encourage the College of Forestry to promote ecological forest stewardship.
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest.
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan does not honor watershed boundaries and or buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices.
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry messaging on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Laura Ouellette
07/01/2025
I briefly reviewed highlights from the new plan, and am horribly disappointed. Why set a cut at 5 million board feet/year, when the sustainable annual harvest is 4.3 million board feet? What about global warming and wild fire loss? A more conservative cut would be prudent in these difficult times. Thank you for your consideration.
Kelsey King
07/01/2025
I am reaching out to provide information about the Fender's blue butterfly within the Forest, as the species lead for the USFWS. Fender's blue butterflies are still present on OSU property, as of this year. The adjacent private land is actively managed for the butterfly, and more intensive restoration and management efforts have been ongoing there since 2019. Presence of the butterfly on your property (and Kincaid's lupine) was verified in 2019, and is known to still be present (as of June 2025).
These private landowners, who are very interested in the recovery of the butterflies, are wondering what OSU is doing to contribute to the butterfly and lupine populations, and mentioned this plan to me, so I thought I would reach out as I noticed that your table of at-risk species does not reflect the current occupancy of the butterflies on your property.
Are there plans to improve the habitat? Given that Kincaid's lupine is a state listed species, I am interested in learning if there are plans to incorporate restoring this species to the open oak woodland/savannahs is being considered, and I am happy to offer any technical assistance needed.
Additionally, I am the lead for Taylor's checkerspot in Oregon. McCulloch Peak used to be the largest population of Taylor's checkerspot known in Oregon, but changes to forestry practices led to the extirpation of the species from the area by the mid-1990s, and it now persists at only two locations in Oregon. If you all have any questions or interest in this species I would be happy to provide whatever assistance I can.
David Pilz
07/02/2025
A plan is all fine and good, but implementation is crucial. The single most important existential threat of our years to come is climate change. The most important forest management goals should be learning how to manage the MacDonald/Dunn for optimal carbon capture and how to produce economically viable carbon sequestration credits.These goals require managing for far more extensive old-growth forest conditions than stipulated in the draft plan. I urge you to change this..
Forest Management Plan Draft Comments
please conserve true old-growth stands that are in the forest.
1. The 2025 draft plan mentions the 1993 and 2005 Forest Plans. Although these are summarized on pages 17-18, and mentioned elsewhere in the draft plan, I was unable to find a citation indicating where I might access a copy of them. Surely these would be considered public documents. Thus, are pdfs of these plans available for inspection? If so, how do I access a pdf of each? If not, why not? Transparency is mentioned a number of times in the draft plan and allowing reviewers to see previous plans could be very helpful as they try to understand the current plan.
2. Figure 18 on page 47. I appreciate this figure as it clearly indicates the “age structure” of stands on the Forest by showing the amount of area in various age classes. On page 66, it is indicated that management scenarios were modeled over 125 years. Given this situation, it would be very helpful for reviewers if the “age structure” was also provided at 25, 50, 75, and 100 yrs into the future for the preferred management scenario. Such a figure would show clearly reviewers how the various stand management practices, within the preferred management scenario, are likely to change the overall age structure of the forest over time. Surely this would be an easy addition since the modeling effort provides output in 5-yr time steps. Both of my requests above are for more information. Since you have a draft plan out, I am not asking you change that plan but I am requesting the additional information be made available. This could be done very simply on your website by indicating additional background information has been added to at a designated website.
Thank you for this excellent development plan.
Here are my comments:
1. Above all do not make McDonald-Forest a place to park RVs or add more space for them. This is primarily a casual hiking area and not a campground or state park. I know this is not a problem at present ,but please do not make it a problem. We currently have a parking shortage for all automobiles.
2. Allow more volunteers to address your invasive plant crisis
3. Provide interpretation for your oak release thinnings. Many people do not know that oaks are less than 10 percent of their original population.
4. Macdonald Forest 50k is the best run ultramarathon in the Pacific Northwest. Thank you for allowing this fantastic event.
5. All of the trail races at MacDonald Forest benefit numerous high school cross-country teams which is a tribute to the good hearts in the community and the Mac-Dunn Management.
6. Restore after trail runs, especially the MacDonald Forest 50k in muddy conditions.
7. More interpretation of your trees including Giant Sequoia, American chestnut (yes and a good learning tool to discuss American Chestnut blight fungus), and the progeny that were planted with assisted migration 50+ years ago from California forests.
8. No electric bikes. It opens up too many loopholes for abuse and opportunities for negative interactions with hikers.
9. Place your tree species signs higher on trees to avoid being stolen.
Thank you for making this a magical place. John Klock
"First of all I would like to thank OSU for providing and maintaining so many beautiful trails in their forests. Those trails are a valuable local resource. After hiking and biking trails for years, I offer these comments:
1. Keep as much old growth as possible. They are not replaceable in our lifetimes.
2. Do more research rather than cutting for $. It is a welcome change to see a plan to introduce more species. Finding the Mother Tree should be required reading and model for how the forest is managed.
Thank you."
I am writing in favor of the College of Forestry leaning into protecting these forest lands for the benefit on our state, country and the world at large. We depend on OSU to take the larger view and make decisions based on science, not on industry pressure and influence. Thank you for doing the right thing here.
"As someone who values both Oregon’s natural landscapes and the powerful role education plays in shaping the future of forestry, I want to express my support for the 2025 McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan.
The plan states that is was developed through years of collaboration with Tribal partners, faculty, community members, and neighbors and it shows. It balances the complex needs of a changing climate, evolving wood product industries, and the urgent call for biodiversity and long-term resilience.
What’s exciting about this plan is how clearly it reinforces McDonald-Dunn’s role as a living laboratory. This forest isn’t just beautiful, it’s functional. It’s a hands-on classroom for future forest and natural resource professionals, a dynamic site for research that serves our whole region, and a place where community members can see real-world forestry in action.
I appreciate the transparency and care OSU’s College of Forestry has put into shaping a plan that holds onto what’s working — sustainable harvests, active management, recreation access — while adapting boldly to the needs of our time. I look forward to seeing how this plan helps shape forestry practices not just in Corvallis, but throughout Oregon and beyond.
Thank you for the chance to weigh in and for stewarding the forest with such integrity and vision."
"Stop cutting old growth entirely. Partner more with local native tribes. Plant a diverse variety of native trees and shrubs in certain areas that you maintain forever.
Stop spraying herbicides."
"Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the 2025 forest management plan. As an OSU faculty member and regular visitor to the forest, I am grateful for the liberal access you provide to this active timberland. I like the way the forest is managed now, appreciate the concern for forest health and productivity in the new plan and look forward to watching how your careful, thoughtful stewardship helps the forest thrive in the next 20 years. I recognize and value the fact that the Mac forest as an active teaching and research forest and fully support the College of Forestry as it moves forward with this next management plan.
Thank you again for the access you allow to the forest. The forest is a gem and a place where I find great comfort.
Andrew Meigs
Professor Emeritus
CEOAS"
As a doctoral candidate pursuing climate research, and a Corvallis resident who loves the McDonald-Dunn Forest, I am reaching out to sharing my significant concerns regarding the draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest.
The irreplaceable value of the forest ecosystem in mitigating the worst impacts of climate change must be considered. Furthermore, the refuge they offer all of the residents of Corvallis cannot be underestimated in these exceptionally difficult times. Following are a some of the most disturbing components of the plan:
Allocating of 40% of the forest in a manner that will result in a significant increase in clearcutting of the forest. The College of Forestry should emphasize stewardship of the forest, not practices that permanently destroy precious ecosystems.
I have engaged with the public comment periods, and there is always a push by the public to protect more of the forest, especially the old-growth spaces. The plan intends to designate only 10% of the forest as “late-successional”, which is blatant disregard for the public input.
The plan will increase forest fragmentation, severely limiting the ability of the ecosystem to survive.
Climate change is the largest issue we are facing as a society, and the plan entirely fails to address this in any meaningful way. What is the point of a large-swath of researchers at OSU, including myself, working toward addressing climate change and its impacts, if a significant portion of OSU is utterly disregarding these questions and making decisions that actively amplify the problem?
There are very few remaining forests on this planet, and they are under extreme risk in the United States from the actions of the federal government. I am exhausted by the onslaught of news about daily attempts to destroy these treasures, and I implore you to consider what is happening in the broader world with regard to this plan.
I urge you to extend the public comment period, and actually implement our thoughts to change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
We have out of town visitors/ families often, and we usually bring them to hike somewhere in these forests. They always comment as to how fortunate we are to have such great recreational lands so close by. It would be tragic to lose this priceless option, all for profit.
I am writing to share my concerns regarding the OSU draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest. At a time when climate change is accelerating, the failure of the plan to address climate-related impacts of industrial forestry practices is especially concerning.
Here are but a few of the plan's other glaring issues:
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Permitting much larger clearcuts (40 to 80 acres!)
Language which appears to permit more logging of old-growth trees
Downplaying the reality that public opinion is strongly opposed to clearcutting
The College of Forestry may own these forests, but we wish them to be managed as a community resource not a source of income for the college and logging contractors.
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Here are but a few of the plan's other glaring shortcomings:
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Below you will find details from some colleagues of mine that refer to the MacDonald-Dunn Forest. I know plans can change, but continued research, innovation, and future resource management in the face of climate impacts should be prioritized over classic "old school" methods just to create bottom lines (and dollars). The whole point of research is to find new, innovative methods...and minimize effects on wildlife, climate, and recreational use.
Please see those details below and consider taking further action to address these important details:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. The College of Forestry should be promoting ecological forest stewardship, not ecologically-destructive forestry practices!
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest. This plan does NOT honor public input or community values!
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan ignores watershed boundaries and fails to include buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA is a very low bar and does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices!
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry propaganda on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy, and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon. OSU ought to be leading the way in addressing these problems, but the plan lacks specifics and accountability in this area.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
Please consider modifying the plan to specifically and in detail provide more protections for old growth trees.
• It allocates 40% of the forest to “even-age, rotational forestry” - which means we’ll see lots of clearcutting in the forests for years to come. Oregonians are overwhelmingly opposed to clearcutting. I encourage the College of Forestry to promote ecological forest stewardship.
• Only 10% of the forest will be designated “late-successional forest” despite broad community support for protecting more of the forest.
• Restrictions on cutting older trees will be substantially reduced, as the 160 age-limit will be removed. OSU’s foresters will be given broad discretion to cut older trees in the name of “public safety” and to create their desired stand conditions.
• The plan does not honor watershed boundaries and or buffers around older stands, increasing fragmentation of the forest. This diminishes the ecology and biodiversity of the forest.
• The plan’s reliance on the Oregon Forest Practices Act as the only enforceable standard is inconsistent with OSU’s desire to be a leader in forestry education. The OFPA does not exemplify leadership in forestry practices.
• Destructive practices, such as herbicide spraying and slash burning, will continue to be used widely throughout the forest, despite broad public opposition to these practices.
• The plan echoes industry messaging on topics like forest carbon sequestration and biomass energy and reflects poorly on OSU’s scientific integrity.
• The plan fails to address climate change in any meaningful or substantive manner. The wood products industry is the largest contributor to GHG emissions in Oregon.
The lack of adequate time for review and commenting (only 30 days) violates established standards commonly used by state and federal agencies. The timing of the review period (at the start of the summer break) and lack of any public presentation reflects very poorly on OSU. I urge you to extend the public comment period and change the draft plan to better reflect both community values and the best available science.
These private landowners, who are very interested in the recovery of the butterflies, are wondering what OSU is doing to contribute to the butterfly and lupine populations, and mentioned this plan to me, so I thought I would reach out as I noticed that your table of at-risk species does not reflect the current occupancy of the butterflies on your property.
Are there plans to improve the habitat? Given that Kincaid's lupine is a state listed species, I am interested in learning if there are plans to incorporate restoring this species to the open oak woodland/savannahs is being considered, and I am happy to offer any technical assistance needed.
Additionally, I am the lead for Taylor's checkerspot in Oregon. McCulloch Peak used to be the largest population of Taylor's checkerspot known in Oregon, but changes to forestry practices led to the extirpation of the species from the area by the mid-1990s, and it now persists at only two locations in Oregon. If you all have any questions or interest in this species I would be happy to provide whatever assistance I can.
A plan is all fine and good, but implementation is crucial. The single most important existential threat of our years to come is climate change. The most important forest management goals should be learning how to manage the MacDonald/Dunn for optimal carbon capture and how to produce economically viable carbon sequestration credits.These goals require managing for far more extensive old-growth forest conditions than stipulated in the draft plan. I urge you to change this..