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. I would also say that OSU is missing an opportunity to showcase its brilliant forestry faculty by developing a more modern, ecological methodology of forest management.
• 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.
Deborah Merchant
07/13/2025
I urge you to stop all OSU logging practices on the public lands that belong to me, my family, friends, neighbors, and everyone Oregonian!
In the name of human health - both psychological and physical - the following four research-based institutions clearly make the case for protecting forests. These are only four of hundreds of resources indicating unequivocally that forest logging provides no human benefit. OSU would be wise to join other academic and research institutions in cooling our climate for the sake of healthy human communities.
Please read, learn, acknowledge and respond to all of the public sentiment sent to OSU in recent years - public lands are not yours to clearcut!
National Library of Medicine Excerpt: "The results of a vast amount of research show that forest visits promote both physical and mental health by reducing stress."
Science Direct Excerpt: "Findings from this review indicated that all types of forest had beneficial outcomes on mental health and wellbeing. These findings suggest that all forests have the potential to induce positive and reduce negative effect."
MIT on Forests and Climate Change Excerpt: "Because trees release moisture that cools the air around them, scientists have found that deforestation has led to more intense heat waves in North America and Eurasia. There are three ways to reverse these losses: afforestation, reforestation, and the natural regeneration of forest ecosystems."
The World Economic Forum Excerpt: "Climate change, land degradation, deforestation and unsustainable land use cause some forests to emit more carbon than they absorb. Increasing nature restoration and conservation efforts can reverse this global trend and lead to a “positive tipping point” for ecosystem restoration and biodiversity.”
Jon Igelman
07/13/2025
I strongly urge you to take whatever action necessary to preserve the old growth forests under your control. Remember that old growth trees can never be replaced New trees can be planted, but they will never be old growth. Save them to be admired and appreciated by future generations.
Monica Thukral
07/13/2025
I’m disappointed to hear that the draft plan is prioritizing clear cutting and money over the needs of our community, wildlife, and climate change in general. Cutting down per the plan will disrupt wildlife in ways that we may not be able to come back from. Please do not go the way of our current administration and advocate to do the right thing.
Becky Lippmann
07/13/2025
"Hello, Thank you for providing an opportunity for the public to submit a comment. I am concerned about the high number of acres scheduled for clearcutting. The clearcut areas of 80 acre area for even-aged short rotation and 40 acre area for even-aged long rotation are both very large areas. However, there is a plethora of research studies already completed on the effects of clearcutting. The space needed to new growth research project would not require such a large area. Please reduce the acreage proposed for clearcutting. I understand the revenue from the timber is used to support the forest management, research programs and other partnership programs. There can be a budget that coordinates with the harvest of the trees, while keeping sustainable forest practices. Please be diligent in balancing the need of harvesting trees with sound ecological research. Thank you."
Catie Mullen
07/13/2025
I am very worried about the proposed plan for the changes in management of the McDonald-Dunn Forest. Particularly, I am concerned about the increased removal of critical carbon stores in the forest and clear cutting of large acreages of trees that make our forest beautiful and a home for the wildlife of the Willamette Valley.
I do not support increasing the area of trees harvested, especially in spots that are enjoyed by the public. As a newer Oregonion from Iowa, I have seen the consequences of removing large areas of natural habitat on ecosystems. One of the things I love most about Oregon is the emphasis on keeping the forests intact and appreciating nature.
My husband and I are avid hikers and frequently go to McDonald-Dunn Forest, and we would hate to have one of our favorite local spots be marred by excessive removal of the trees.
I hope that you take Benton County residents' opinions into consideration, and I urge you to reduce the area proposed for tree thinning and logging significantly for McDonald-Dunn Forest.
Glen Canning
07/13/2025
This message is directed to those responsible for management of the McDonald-Dunn forest. As a concerned citizen, avid hiker, and forest neighbor, I respectfully request that the forest plan prioritizes the forest ecology, wildfire resilience, and preservation of the remaining old growth trees. The old growth trees are a treasure and should be preserved for our community and for future generations of humans and animals. The hiking and biking trails generate tourist revenue to our community and must be managed with concern for the impact to our environment and community.
Please limit clearcutting and preserve our treasured forest and especially the mature, majestic, and irreplaceable old growth trees.
Janice Cockrell Czerniejewski
07/13/2025
I'm very concerned that this plan does not adequately protect old growth, wildlife corridors and ecological diversity. These forests belong to the public and not the university but the plan appears to be focused on generating revenue rather than ecological restoration and protection against fires and landslides.
Dortha Canning
07/13/2025
This message is directed to those responsible for management of the McDonald-Dunn forest. As a concerned citizen, avid hiker, and forest neighbor, I respectfully request that the forest plan prioritizes the forest ecology, wildfire resilience, and preservation of the remaining old growth trees. The old growth trees are a treasure and should be preserved for our community and for future generations of humans and animals. The hiking and biking trails generate tourist revenue to our community and must be managed with concern for the impact to our environment and community.
Please limit clearcutting and preserve our treasured forest and especially the mature, majestic, and irreplaceable old growth trees.
Bradley Ryan
07/13/2025
Keep the Mac green. No clear cutting
Patricia Berman
07/13/2025
As a 45 year resident of Corvallis I want to express my deep concerns about the Management Proposal and the lack of public information sessions.
The public lands which comprise this forest are a valued part of my home and that of my two now adult children who learned ecology, found solace and community and recreated there. I hike multiple times a week in MacDonald Forest, a major reason so many have found Corvallis the ideal place to call home. Our forests make this town unique in a manner others envy.
I understand and respect that these forests have an important role to play in Forest Research, and that Forest Products is one arm of the School of Forestry. However the new draft plan is entirely slanted towards extracting timber from the forest, with little regard for the “worth more standing” value of trees older than 80 years, for wildlife, CO2 storage which is one of our only remaining tools to mitigate the rapidly overheating planet, water quality, and for maintaining a complex ecosystem.
The small percentage of older trees designated for protection is far too small, and there is no buffer around them specified. The proposal essentially gives a green light to cut most of the forest in huge 40-80 acre clear cuts. This is short sighted and a terrible choice for OSU, once so highly respected as a leading school for forest ecology, and for Corvallis. Once cut, the older and oldest trees are not replaceable in our lifetime. Nor is the complex ecosystem they support. It is not too late to stop this mistake, but it will be very soon. These are PUBLIC lands, beloved by the public, and worth more standing.
Staci Stein
07/14/2025
I’m writing because I’m worried about the new plan for the McDonald and Dunn Forests. From what I’ve seen and heard, many people—including myself—think there’s just too much clearcutting in the plan. Allowing such large areas to be clearcut feels like it puts profits over the health of the forest. I’m also concerned about the burning of leftover wood after logging, which adds to air pollution and climate change. After that, spraying herbicides just spreads more chemicals through the forest and harms plants and animals. The plan doesn’t seem to pay enough attention to protecting streams, watersheds, or the oldest trees. By getting rid of the rule that protected trees over 160 years old, it feels like the door is open to cutting down some of the most valuable parts of the forest. I’m also worried about calling burning wood for energy “renewable,” when it still pollutes and damages the forest. The plan talks about “sustainable forestry,” but it seems to mean keeping up timber production, not really taking care of the forest for the long term. There’s only a small increase in the area set aside for older forests, even though most people I know want to see much more of the forest protected. I don’t think the public has had enough chances to learn about or weigh in on this plan, even though a lot of us care deeply about these forests. Overall, this plan seems to put logging and making money ahead of what’s best for the forest, the community, and the future. I hope you’ll consider setting aside all stands that are 80 years old or older, and making sure there are good buffers around them. Please listen to the community and do more to protect these special forests. Thank you for your time. As been proven---When forests thrive, communities flourish!
Judy Riggs
07/14/2025
I vigorously object to the proposed forest plan, because it HEAVILY contains too much industrial harvesting. Oregon State has been an international leader in forest research, so why is the department ignoring ecological forest management in favor of the outdated clear cut as much as possible model?
Oregon State’s own professors have advocated and taught current thinking about management, and the importance of preserving much more intact, older stands, instead of the approach your plan takes. Your plan is out dated!
I have been walking in the forest for 40 years, and have seen it progressively more clear cut, hotter, and the understory degraded.
Please listen to the public, because this treasure belongs to us Oregonians. We want to be proud of Oregon State as a world leader in Forest management. This plan is obsolete, and in the face of climate change it is even more important to realize the importance of forests for all of us and the earth.
The committee has thus far stifled public comment. I and my many friends who see the forest daily see it irrevocably torn up. Don’t waste this precious resource for short term gain. Remember, the forest belongs to the state, not just the planning committee.
Marsha Swanson
07/14/2025
Time has come to fully include the incredible, world renowned OSU scientist from all related disciplines in the planning and decision making of managing all OSU managed forests.
Kurt Widstrand
07/14/2025
The proposed plan for MacDonald is business as usual. No consideration for consequences of continued extraction. You would think some sort of conciliation to a planet with dire problems would be part of the program from people are supposed to be leaders in forest sustainability. But it seems OSU is really a shill for commercial interests to turn our forests into plantings to be continued sources of dollar extraction in the future. Forests are not plantings. They are diverse ecosystems-from the trees themselves to the tiniest microorganisms that live in the soil. Turning them into mono culture farms without consideration for the deleterious effects of those in the future is almost criminal. This notion that we can change vast portions of our environment on an industrial scale with unknown consequences could be catastrophic. I would hope that those with a conscience at OSU would look internally to why the university seems hellbent on extraction (follow the money) and consider the moral consequences of these continued rapacious policies. As leaders and moral citizens we are not without responsibility for our vision of the present for those who come after us in the future. On our deathbeds we have our family, our friends and our regrets- don’t add these bad decisions to the regrets.
Clarissa Thomas
07/14/2025
I am a long-time resident of Corvallis (more than 30 years) and have been an active user of McDonald-Dunn forest hiking and biking trails that entire time. I could not value more highly the immense blessing to our community of having McDonald-Dunn forest on our doorstep, with all the recreational opportunities it affords, as well as the ecosystems and habitat that it provides. I would like to strongly register my disapproval of a plan that increases the timber harvesting in our forest. As an avid outdoors-person, it sickens and dismays me to see the unsustainable level of clear-cutting that has occurred in local national forests over the last several years. I recently hiked to the top of Mary’s Peak and was absolutely shocked at the amount of clear-cutting visible, which was a huge increase from my prior visit to Mary’s Peak. OSU forests have been a comparative sanctuary, with its focus on sustainable forestry, wildlife tree preservation, and preservation of old growth. From my understanding of the new draft plan, there will be much less emphasis on preservation of old growth and habitat, and a much higher focus on timber harvesting. As a longtime member of this community, I would like to forcefully state my opposition to increasing clear-cutting and timber harvesting in McDonald-Dunn forests, especially as our national forests are now at risk of being sold off and clear cut. Please invest in the long term benefits to our community of having this forest preserved, as opposed to short term economic gain.
Richard Felley
07/14/2025
I graduated from OSU in 1980 with a degree in wildlife science. I have watched and read many things pertaining to the Elliott State Research Forest and now the McDonald-Dunn Forest. I am at point in my life where I could decide to leave something to OSU or not. For the past few years, the university's position on forestry issues has left me generally disappointed. The timber industry has had its way with the State of Oregon for decades and I see little difference in the behavior of the school of forestry at OSU. My alma mater could show the world the high road by taking appropriate positions on leaving old growth and mature trees to live out their lives benefiting the planet, but no, into the conversation always comes the subject of management, economics, clearcutting, herbicides and so on. I have personally accumulated photographic evidence that this region is changing dramatically and tree farms are not regrowing dependably any longer. I also recently observed similar regrowth problems in a coastal portion of the Tillamook State Forest. OSU should be acknowledging this rather than carrying on a "business as usual approach" to silviculture cloaked in research language. The end is near for Oregon temperate rainforests and only OSU, the timber industry and the state of Oregon can do something about it. Stop managing the McDonald-Dunn at all so that locals can experience what happens when humans stop interfering with natural processes. I cannot support OSU’s position on forest management at this time.
Andrew Gray
07/14/2025
"The description for the “Even-aged, Short Rotation Management Strategy” states that “Even-aged plantations of Douglas-fir (or other climatic-appropriate species and genetic stock) will be established and managed to be financially-competitive by maximizing yields of wood products valuable for domestic mills. Rotation length will be 30–60 years, with most being 35–45 years.” How did you determine that 35-45 year rotations would maximize yield of wood products?
Decades of research have shown that maximum sustained yield of wood is accomplished by managing stands to culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI). Research in the Pacific Northwest indicates that for productive Douglas-fir forest, CMAI begins at stand ages of around 80 years (citations below). CMAI occurs later in less productive stands, or can be delayed if commercial thinning occurs as stands are maturing. Every public agency in the region with a mandate to maximize sustained yield specifies that regeneration harvest occur at stand ages of at least 70 years or more. In fact the “Even-aged, Long Rotation Management Strategy” is more likely to maximize the production of wood products over time, as well as the revenue to the College produced from its sale..
Short rotations are practiced by investor-owned companies to maximize net present value on their corporate data sheets, not to maximize wood production. Please provide support for the statement about short rotations maximizing wood production or change it.
Acker, S.A., T.E. Sabin, L.M. Ganio, and W.A. McKee. 1998. Development of old-growth structure and timber volume growth trends in maturing Douglas-fir stands. Forest Ecology and Management 104:265-280.
Curtis, R.O. 1992. A new look at an old question--Douglas-fir culmination age. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 74:97-99.
Curtis, R.O. 2006. Volume growth trends in a Douglas-fir levels-of-growing-stock study. . Western Journal of Applied Forestry 21:79-86
Curtis, R.O., D.S. DeBell, C.A. Harrington, D.P. Lavender, J.B. St. Clair, J.C. Tappeiner, and J.D. Walstad. 1998. Silviculture for multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir region. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-GTR-435.
Curtis, R.O. and D.D. Marshall. 1993. Douglas-fir rotations--time for reappraisal? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8:81-85.
Chisholm, P.J. and A.N. Gray. 2024. Forest carbon sequestration on the west coast, USA: Role of species, productivity, and stockability. Plos One 19:e0302823.
Diaz, D.D., S. Loreno, G.J. Ettl, and B. Davies. 2018. Tradeoffs in Timber, Carbon, and Cash Flow under Alternative Management Systems for Douglas-Fir in the Pacific Northwest. Forests 9:447.
Tappeiner, J., D. Adams, C. Montgomery, and D. Maguire. 2021. Growth of Managed Older Douglas-fir Stands: Implications of the Black Rock Thinning Trial in the Coast Range of Western Oregon. Journal of Forestry 120:282-288.
Anonymous
07/14/2025
This plan promotes increases in clearcutting size and frequency, in stark contrast to what forest stakeholders actually want as expressed through public engagement. People actually want to see less clearcutting, not more. Leaving trees and managing for longevity is better for forest ecosystems and recreational forest users. The plan also downplays the role and value of forests in climate change mitigation and carbon sequestration. Those themes should be highlighted and more effort should be made to retain trees for those purposes, not to clearcut for profit at the expense of our planet.
Jukka Naukkarinen
07/15/2025
We live in Deadwood, Oregon and are surrounded by forest. We appreciate your work and the research at College of Forestry.
Hereby respectfully we propose the following management plan for McDonald-Dunn forest: 1) Observe the boundaries of watersheds and ecological zones prior to timber harvesting to preserve water quality.
2) While logging operations are important for generating revenue for the College of Forestry, old growth harvesting should not be used for variety of discretionary reasons including public safety and fuels management.
3) Research forest staff salaries should not be dependent on continued logging as this sends mixed signals to future foresters.
4) Implement change from clearcutting to ecological forest management.
5) Clearcutting now is 40-80 acers, reduce the said amount to 2005 level of 4 acers.
6) Do not further promote the concept that frequent thinning and clearcutting maximizes sequestration of forest carbon in violation of well established science.
7) Provide a commitment to reduce a widespread burning of logging slash which is a major source of pollution and GHG emission.
8) Please discontinue the reliance of widespread use of pesticides/herbicides at the discretion of forest managers.
9) Use a modeling which includes carbon stored in soil. Excluding soil carbon distorts assessment of management in favor of logging.
10) Have Public Comment Period when people are not on vacation.
11) We request public meeting for community feedback.
M. Landman
07/15/2025
Protecting only about 10% of the older forests is not even close to adequate. With the vast majority of old-growth forests already gone in the U.S. and in Oregon, OSU should be taking a wise leadership position as stewards of this land and preserve all old-growth and mature forests and trees on its lands. The plan removes some previous protections for older trees and stands, giving great discretion to OSU foresters to cut trees for a variety of discretionary (or arbitrary) reasons. The plan perpetuates destructive industrial forestry practices across more than 70% of the forest. Rather than leading the industry toward ecological forest management, the plan echoes timber industry talking points and seeks to downplay the critical role that older forests play in mitigating the impacts of climate change. The authors of the draft plan seem to be deliberately ignoring decades of important climate research by OSU’s own experts. The plan has few constraints, other than the relatively low bar of the Oregon Forest Practices Act. Toxic herbicide spraying should NOT be continued across the forest. Furthermore, forest “thinning” (as well as clearcuts) have been proven (by all the most credible studies) to contribute to Worse wildfire spread, despite what the industry would have you believe. And having spent a lot of time in “thinned” forests, I can tell you that there is very little birdsong or sign of wildlife in those forests. They are eerily silent: not healthy forests or ecosystems. State law (ORS 352.025) specifies that the State of Oregon holds the titles for "real property" (i.e. land) of our public universities This means the McDonald-Dunn is public land (and belongs to all Oregonians). OSU should be listening to the public outcry and taking ecological concerns seriously, for current and future generations. The plan is the opposite of a holistic approach, where watershed boundaries, buffers, and ecological considerations would guide forest stewardship. It prioritizes aggressive forestry and revenue generation at the expense of research, education, recreation, community values, and the future. As a citizen of Corvallis, I am appalled and angry that OSU’s McDonald-Dunn forest management plan is so flawed, short-sighted, antiquated, and destructive. OSU should listen to its own climate and ecology experts and their scientific findings, and not be bought out or cowed by the timber industry. The university ought to demonstrate courage, ethics, independence, and leadership, and embrace the role of good, future-minded stewards of our shared environment (and climate).
Shannon O'Brien
07/15/2025
I deeply question your knowledge and ethics as a university. From the Friends of OSU Old Growth.. "OSU should have respected our community’s deep ties to the forest by providing for an extensive plan review. This oversight seems especially clumsy for a College that recently concluded a multi-year forest planning effort involving the Elliott State Research Forest. During that process, OSU was repeatedly criticized for not following standard public review protocols. It seems college leaders have a difficult time with this concept: shortchanging the public only breeds more distrust." What more needs to be said? Please ACT like an intelligent entity..isn't that the purpose of higher education? I look forward to hearing a positive outcome for this as-of-yet dismal situation.
Jayne Michelle Riesselman
07/15/2025
I am not in favor of your clear cutting the McDonald Dunn Forest. This will affect the quality of life we have in Corvallis. The trails are visited by hundreds of people each week and this is part of what makes living in Corvallis a great place to live. OSU’s reputation has been declining and this will not help. They need the support of Corvallis citizens and this will undermine many of the good things OSU has accomplished. Please reconsider, for your community.
Michael Schlax
07/15/2025
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.
Barbara Loeb
07/15/2025
McDonald Forest is an invaluable part of our community. I recommend you follow the approach outlined by Howard Bruner in his Gazette Times commentary, "McDonald/Dunn Forests Cannot Afford Industrialized Mindset, " July 10, 2025.
Forest Management Plan Draft Comments
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. I would also say that OSU is missing an opportunity to showcase its brilliant forestry faculty by developing a more modern, ecological methodology of forest management.
• 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.
I urge you to stop all OSU logging practices on the public lands that belong to me, my family, friends, neighbors, and everyone Oregonian!
In the name of human health - both psychological and physical - the following four research-based institutions clearly make the case for protecting forests. These are only four of hundreds of resources indicating unequivocally that forest logging provides no human benefit. OSU would be wise to join other academic and research institutions in cooling our climate for the sake of healthy human communities.
Please read, learn, acknowledge and respond to all of the public sentiment sent to OSU in recent years - public lands are not yours to clearcut!
National Library of Medicine Excerpt: "The results of a vast amount of research show that forest visits promote both physical and mental health by reducing stress."
Science Direct Excerpt: "Findings from this review indicated that all types of forest had beneficial outcomes on mental health and wellbeing. These findings suggest that all forests have the potential to induce positive and reduce negative effect."
MIT on Forests and Climate Change Excerpt: "Because trees release moisture that cools the air around them, scientists have found that deforestation has led to more intense heat waves in North America and Eurasia. There are three ways to reverse these losses: afforestation, reforestation, and the natural regeneration of forest ecosystems."
The World Economic Forum Excerpt: "Climate change, land degradation, deforestation and unsustainable land use cause some forests to emit more carbon than they absorb. Increasing nature restoration and conservation efforts can reverse this global trend and lead to a “positive tipping point” for ecosystem restoration and biodiversity.”
"Hello,
Thank you for providing an opportunity for the public to submit a comment. I am concerned about the high number of acres scheduled for clearcutting. The clearcut areas of 80 acre area for even-aged short rotation and 40 acre area for even-aged long rotation are both very large areas. However, there is a plethora of research studies already completed on the effects of clearcutting. The space needed to new growth research project would not require such a large area. Please reduce the acreage proposed for clearcutting.
I understand the revenue from the timber is used to support the forest management, research programs and other partnership programs. There can be a budget that coordinates with the harvest of the trees, while keeping sustainable forest practices. Please be diligent in balancing the need of harvesting trees with sound ecological research.
Thank you."
I do not support increasing the area of trees harvested, especially in spots that are enjoyed by the public. As a newer Oregonion from Iowa, I have seen the consequences of removing large areas of natural habitat on ecosystems. One of the things I love most about Oregon is the emphasis on keeping the forests intact and appreciating nature.
My husband and I are avid hikers and frequently go to McDonald-Dunn Forest, and we would hate to have one of our favorite local spots be marred by excessive removal of the trees.
I hope that you take Benton County residents' opinions into consideration, and I urge you to reduce the area proposed for tree thinning and logging significantly for McDonald-Dunn Forest.
This message is directed to those responsible for management of the McDonald-Dunn forest. As a concerned citizen, avid hiker, and forest neighbor, I respectfully request that the forest plan prioritizes the forest ecology, wildfire resilience, and preservation of the remaining old growth trees. The old growth trees are a treasure and should be preserved for our community and for future generations of humans and animals. The hiking and biking trails generate tourist revenue to our community and must be managed with concern for the impact to our environment and community.
Please limit clearcutting and preserve our treasured forest and especially the mature, majestic, and irreplaceable old growth trees.
This message is directed to those responsible for management of the McDonald-Dunn forest. As a concerned citizen, avid hiker, and forest neighbor, I respectfully request that the forest plan prioritizes the forest ecology, wildfire resilience, and preservation of the remaining old growth trees. The old growth trees are a treasure and should be preserved for our community and for future generations of humans and animals. The hiking and biking trails generate tourist revenue to our community and must be managed with concern for the impact to our environment and community.
Please limit clearcutting and preserve our treasured forest and especially the mature, majestic, and irreplaceable old growth trees.
Keep the Mac green. No clear cutting
The public lands which comprise this forest are a valued part of my home and that of my two now adult children who learned ecology, found solace and community and recreated there. I hike multiple times a week in MacDonald Forest, a major reason so many have found Corvallis the ideal place to call home. Our forests make this town unique in a manner others envy.
I understand and respect that these forests have an important role to play in Forest Research, and that Forest Products is one arm of the School of Forestry. However the new draft plan is entirely slanted towards extracting timber from the forest, with little regard for the “worth more standing” value of trees older than 80 years, for wildlife, CO2 storage which is one of our only remaining tools to mitigate the rapidly overheating planet, water quality, and for maintaining a complex ecosystem.
The small percentage of older trees designated for protection is far too small, and there is no buffer around them specified. The proposal essentially gives a green light to cut most of the forest in huge 40-80 acre clear cuts. This is short sighted and a terrible choice for OSU, once so highly respected as a leading school for forest ecology, and for Corvallis. Once cut, the older and oldest trees are not replaceable in our lifetime. Nor is the complex ecosystem they support. It is not too late to stop this mistake, but it will be very soon. These are PUBLIC lands, beloved by the public, and worth more standing.
I’m also concerned about the burning of leftover wood after logging, which adds to air pollution and climate change. After that, spraying herbicides just spreads more chemicals through the forest and harms plants and animals.
The plan doesn’t seem to pay enough attention to protecting streams, watersheds, or the oldest trees. By getting rid of the rule that protected trees over 160 years old, it feels like the door is open to cutting down some of the most valuable parts of the forest.
I’m also worried about calling burning wood for energy “renewable,” when it still pollutes and damages the forest. The plan talks about “sustainable forestry,” but it seems to mean keeping up timber production, not really taking care of the forest for the long term.
There’s only a small increase in the area set aside for older forests, even though most people I know want to see much more of the forest protected. I don’t think the public has had enough chances to learn about or weigh in on this plan, even though a lot of us care deeply about these forests.
Overall, this plan seems to put logging and making money ahead of what’s best for the forest, the community, and the future. I hope you’ll consider setting aside all stands that are 80 years old or older, and making sure there are good buffers around them. Please listen to the community and do more to protect these special forests.
Thank you for your time.
As been proven---When forests thrive, communities flourish!
I vigorously object to the proposed forest plan, because it HEAVILY contains too much industrial harvesting. Oregon State has been an international leader in forest research, so why is the department ignoring ecological forest management in favor of the outdated clear cut as much as possible model?
Oregon State’s own professors have advocated and taught current thinking about management, and the importance of preserving much more intact, older stands, instead of the approach your plan takes. Your plan is out dated!
I have been walking in the forest for 40 years, and have seen it progressively more clear cut, hotter, and the understory degraded.
Please listen to the public, because this treasure belongs to us Oregonians. We want to be proud of Oregon State as a world leader in Forest management. This plan is obsolete, and in the face of climate change it is even more important to realize the importance of forests for all of us and the earth.
The committee has thus far stifled public comment. I and my many friends who see the forest daily see it irrevocably torn up. Don’t waste this precious resource for short term gain. Remember, the forest belongs to the state, not just the planning committee.
Time has come to fully include the incredible, world renowned OSU scientist from all related disciplines in the planning and decision making of managing all OSU managed forests.
I am a long-time resident of Corvallis (more than 30 years) and have been an active user of McDonald-Dunn forest hiking and biking trails that entire time. I could not value more highly the immense blessing to our community of having McDonald-Dunn forest on our doorstep, with all the recreational opportunities it affords, as well as the ecosystems and habitat that it provides. I would like to strongly register my disapproval of a plan that increases the timber harvesting in our forest. As an avid outdoors-person, it sickens and dismays me to see the unsustainable level of clear-cutting that has occurred in local national forests over the last several years. I recently hiked to the top of Mary’s Peak and was absolutely shocked at the amount of clear-cutting visible, which was a huge increase from my prior visit to Mary’s Peak. OSU forests have been a comparative sanctuary, with its focus on sustainable forestry, wildlife tree preservation, and preservation of old growth. From my understanding of the new draft plan, there will be much less emphasis on preservation of old growth and habitat, and a much higher focus on timber harvesting. As a longtime member of this community, I would like to forcefully state my opposition to increasing clear-cutting and timber harvesting in McDonald-Dunn forests, especially as our national forests are now at risk of being sold off and clear cut. Please invest in the long term benefits to our community of having this forest preserved, as opposed to short term economic gain.
"The description for the “Even-aged, Short Rotation Management Strategy” states that “Even-aged plantations of Douglas-fir (or other climatic-appropriate species and genetic stock) will be established and managed to be financially-competitive by maximizing yields of wood products valuable for domestic mills. Rotation length will be 30–60 years, with most being 35–45 years.” How did you determine that 35-45 year rotations would maximize yield of wood products?
Decades of research have shown that maximum sustained yield of wood is accomplished by managing stands to culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI). Research in the Pacific Northwest indicates that for productive Douglas-fir forest, CMAI begins at stand ages of around 80 years (citations below). CMAI occurs later in less productive stands, or can be delayed if commercial thinning occurs as stands are maturing. Every public agency in the region with a mandate to maximize sustained yield specifies that regeneration harvest occur at stand ages of at least 70 years or more. In fact the “Even-aged, Long Rotation Management Strategy” is more likely to maximize the production of wood products over time, as well as the revenue to the College produced from its sale..
Short rotations are practiced by investor-owned companies to maximize net present value on their corporate data sheets, not to maximize wood production. Please provide support for the statement about short rotations maximizing wood production or change it.
Acker, S.A., T.E. Sabin, L.M. Ganio, and W.A. McKee. 1998. Development of old-growth structure and timber volume growth trends in maturing Douglas-fir stands. Forest Ecology and Management 104:265-280.
Curtis, R.O. 1992. A new look at an old question--Douglas-fir culmination age. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 74:97-99.
Curtis, R.O. 2006. Volume growth trends in a Douglas-fir levels-of-growing-stock study. . Western Journal of Applied Forestry 21:79-86
Curtis, R.O., D.S. DeBell, C.A. Harrington, D.P. Lavender, J.B. St. Clair, J.C. Tappeiner, and J.D. Walstad. 1998. Silviculture for multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir region. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-GTR-435.
Curtis, R.O. and D.D. Marshall. 1993. Douglas-fir rotations--time for reappraisal? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8:81-85.
Chisholm, P.J. and A.N. Gray. 2024. Forest carbon sequestration on the west coast, USA: Role of species, productivity, and stockability. Plos One 19:e0302823.
Diaz, D.D., S. Loreno, G.J. Ettl, and B. Davies. 2018. Tradeoffs in Timber, Carbon, and Cash Flow under Alternative Management Systems for Douglas-Fir in the Pacific Northwest. Forests 9:447.
Tappeiner, J., D. Adams, C. Montgomery, and D. Maguire. 2021. Growth of Managed Older Douglas-fir Stands: Implications of the Black Rock Thinning Trial in the Coast Range of Western Oregon. Journal of Forestry 120:282-288.
This plan promotes increases in clearcutting size and frequency, in stark contrast to what forest stakeholders actually want as expressed through public engagement. People actually want to see less clearcutting, not more. Leaving trees and managing for longevity is better for forest ecosystems and recreational forest users. The plan also downplays the role and value of forests in climate change mitigation and carbon sequestration. Those themes should be highlighted and more effort should be made to retain trees for those purposes, not to clearcut for profit at the expense of our planet.
We live in Deadwood, Oregon and are surrounded by forest. We appreciate your work and the research at College of Forestry.
Hereby respectfully we propose the following management plan for McDonald-Dunn forest:
1) Observe the boundaries of watersheds and ecological zones prior to timber harvesting to preserve water quality.
2) While logging operations are important for generating revenue for the College of Forestry, old growth harvesting should not be used for variety of discretionary reasons including public safety and fuels management.
3) Research forest staff salaries should not be dependent on continued logging as this sends mixed signals to future foresters.
4) Implement change from clearcutting to ecological forest management.
5) Clearcutting now is 40-80 acers, reduce the said amount to 2005 level of 4 acers.
6) Do not further promote the concept that frequent thinning and clearcutting maximizes sequestration of forest carbon in violation of well established science.
7) Provide a commitment to reduce a widespread burning of logging slash which is a major source of pollution and GHG emission.
8) Please discontinue the reliance of widespread use of pesticides/herbicides at the discretion of forest managers.
9) Use a modeling which includes carbon stored in soil. Excluding soil carbon distorts assessment of management in favor of logging.
10) Have Public Comment Period when people are not on vacation.
11) We request public meeting for community feedback.
I am not in favor of your clear cutting the McDonald Dunn Forest. This will affect the quality of life we have in Corvallis. The trails are visited by hundreds of people each week and this is part of what makes living in Corvallis a great place to live. OSU’s reputation has been declining and this will not help. They need the support of Corvallis citizens and this will undermine many of the good things OSU has accomplished. Please reconsider, for your community.
• 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.