I am a constituent from Corvallis Oregon. My husband and I actually just moved here about a year ago now. One of the big reasons we moved was because of the close access to mountain biking. The Mac is what drew us to live here versus other places in Oregon. I understand the intention of this forest is for research, but I urge you to also think about the draw the Mac-Dunn brings to people considering going to school here, or staying after they have left school and continue to contribute to the local economy and therefore promoting the school and its programs. The way the Mac is managed highlights the logging industry and either draws support for it, or pushes people against it. I have previously admired the way logging is done in the Mac and thought it was so cool to see that there is research being done to make things more sustainable. The current plan does not align with sustainability and therefore drives me and others to resist the logging industry and a whole, including the program at OSU.

I’m writing to comment on the Proposed 2025 McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan. By way of background, I live on Marshall Drive in NW Corvallis and have been a neighbor to McDonald Forest for many years. I also volunteer for trail building (through Team Dirt), use McDonald-Dunn Forest for recreation (hiking, biking), and am concerned about native plant and animal loss as a consequence of climate change and other human-caused changes to the natural environment.

The Proposed 2025 McDonald-Dunn Forest plan contains numerous excellent changes from the 2005 plan. I appreciate the Faculty Planning Committee’s work, and especially efforts to engage multiple stakeholders outside of the University such as the Indigenous Peoples, Oregon citizens, and local Corvallis citizens.

I appreciate, in particular that the new plan has more focus than the 2005 plan on management strategies that are not adequately represented or likely to be funded by the private sector: multi- aged, multi-species, late-successional forest, and ecosystems of concern.

However, I question why Oregon State needs to use this research forest to study even-aged, short rotation or even-aged long rotation management at all. The proposed plan shows large areas of private forest land to the East of the McDonald-Dunn holdings. The plan does not state how these forests are managed, but it’s likely that most are managed as even-aged stands. Companies who own these stands (private owners, public corporations, and hedge funds) have plenty of incentive to partner with OSU to run important experiments related to genetics and climate adaptability. They also, without OSU’s help, provide early seral habitat just next door to McDonald-Dunn Forest. It’s doubtful that providing that extra early seral habitat in McDonald-Dunn is useful to flora or fauna relative to the option of increasing acreage of more diverse forests through, for example, late- successional or eco-system of concern management strategies. Our local forests lack diversity, not clear cut induced early seral forests.

As you make final changes to this plan, I ask that you consider creative options to build and leverage partnerships with owners and managers in nearby forests in a way that allows OSU to better utilize the acreage where OSU alone can provide new and unique understanding. Specifically, develop partnerships that enable studies using nearby public and private lands that are already using some form of even-aged, short duration and/or long-duration rotations. Instead, utilize the land previously planned for these practices in the 2025 McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan to focus on management practices that have less obvious, immediate, financial benefit. This approach would put more total land in play for OSU and create more diverse forests within McDonald-Dunn Forest.

I recognize that moving this direction would reduce wood product income from the forest and thus create an economic sustainability issue. I urge you to more fully explore some of the ideas that are in the proposed plan, to manage the financial issue. Perhaps, as a start, the plan would initiate a permanent “Development Team” explore and develop the alternative sources of revenue proposed in Table 3, as well as others.

In summary:

• I appreciate the tentative steps taken in the Proposed 2025 McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan to reduce the amount of even-aged short, rotation management, per feedback from stakeholders.

• I also appreciate how the plan lays out a new model for collaboration with local Indigenous Peoples.

• Changes that I would like to see include:

o Be bold! Move all even-aged, short rotation studies to acreage owned by others through partnerships.

o Reduce the acreage associated with even-aged, long rotation management to less than 15% of total acreage. Again, partner with other land-owners to perform important studies related to this management approach.

o Utilize acreage in McDonald-Dunn for novel studies that will not be done on private or other public land, particularly related to multi-aged, multi-species management, late-successional forest, and ecosystems of concern.

o Invest in more sustained and determined financial development to fund the financial shortfalls that come about because of the reduction in revenue from the above.

I appreciate the work of the folks who put this plan together. I hope you find my perspective helpful.

Best Regards,

Grant Pease

I fully concur with the attached Oregon Wild comments, particularly regarding the insanity of clearcutting our only resource capable of mitigating climate change and deterring wildfires. 
Submitted by:
Carol Van Strum

July 16, 2025
Dear OSU Forest Science Dept and OSU Board of Trustee's, I concur with Oregon Wild's summary statement to the OSU Forestry Dept. Draft Management Plan 2025.

"We urge OSU to reject the agricultural model of forestry in the McDonald-Dunn Forest and instead develop and adopt an ecological approach that is more aligned with public values by conserving more mature and old-growth forest that provide clean, cool water; stable water flows; high quality habitat that helps provide hunting and fishing opportunities, recover endangered species, and support indigenous cultures; carbon storage that mitigates global climate change; microclimate refugia for wildlife trying to escape climate extremes; soil and slope stability; resilience to wildfire; diverse recreation opportunities, and quality of life that forms the foundation of Oregon's diverse economy. The industrial model undermines all these goals, and there is already far too much of that happening in western Oregon on private lands. Public lands can and should do things differently."

Personally experiencing the McDonald Forest/Dunn Forest/Peavy Arboretum area’s are getting serious use every day and night, by 100's of area/out of area residents who visit and enjoy these forested areas, next to Corvallis, Oregon.

Visitors find peace within these State of Oregon Forested area’s, and this peace seeking at this time is an important physical asset for Oregon, Corvallis and to OSU.
Students come to OSU for the ability to enjoy exploring these forests, which are truly at their back door’s, and close by the City of Corvallis and the OSU Corvallis Campus.
Initiating more industrial forestry management into forest's like McDonald/
Dunn and Peavy Arboretum area forests must be closely evaluated against a long list of ecological and environmental benefits for not clearing old growth, not clearing to 100% second growth plantations and not entering any old growth stands for dead tree removal, road building for future timber sales, and for logging to fund College of Forestry bills, from old growth age class forested areas.

The State of Oregon cut limit age should drop to 80 to reflect the Federal Standard in the NWFPlan, which is out of date but revised and support’s the retention of older forest age class on Federal land in Oregon. 170 years aged cut limit releases too much carbon into the global environment as these trees are removed out of carbon sequestration where they do the most benefit, remaining alive and for the next 200 plus years, keep working/growing to sequester possibly a known amount of tons of carbon a year, per each 170 year old, old growth tree.

State Forestry management guidelines should work to retain, protect and support older then 160- 170 year aged forests on private and State owned Lands. From what is proposed, in this Draft Mg Plan, the State Forest Practices Act allows cutting trees over 170 years. Where are these older forests on State Land in the Oregon Coast Range? Possibly they exist still on land managed by OSU Dept. of Forestry and trees at 170 years and older, should not be cut at all, under this Draft Forestry Mg. Plan 2025.

The people of Oregon own these forests and everyone should have some input into how they are managed. Removing trees over 170 years needs to be discussed by the citizens of Oregon, as they have no idea this will occur on their State Forested lands with this Forest Mg. Plan Draft.

Allowing a few hired forestry mg. contractors, or OSU Forest Science Dept staff to write this mg. plan and not involve the public to review it, and have the public not be able to have time for any Public Meeting opportunities, or open houses to ask questions about this plan before it becomes law is not helpful for the long term health and well being of humanity and the planet.
Global warming is rapidly impacting all the planet’s forested habitats to create dryer forests. Leaving trees standing to create shade, protect against soil erosion is important.
Allowing more intense clearcutting of older age class native forests which leads to increased soil sterilization from slash burning, and of the lack of closed canopies with variability in Crown height that have been working generate water production for area water tables, and for the generation of rainfall locally, will be directly reduced with each clearcut that opens up larger and vast areas of ground to heat up, dry out and be ready to catch on fire with the next lightning storm, or by human causes.

The public should be involved in long term decisions in this Draft Mg. Plan in each of these State owned forests OSU Dept. of Forestry and their contracting forestry businesses are paid to clear cut slash burn , spray, plant, thin, and continue to manage for 30 years.
The public should have the right to have the chance and time, to look at this mg. Plan and better understand the threats these forests will face with active global warming going on and the need in this Draft Mg. Plan, to increase clearcut for profit, in larger and larger areas and in stands which OSU College Forestry never planted, and are native natural original old growth, that have been for the past 200 plus years, regenerating from natural selection processes within in these State owned forests.

Clearing forests over 170 years of age, in the face of active global warming fails to acknowledge how critical these old growth trees are individually, for carbon storage.
80 year old trees are considered old growth by the USFS.

Cutting down trees at 170 years increases the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, and adds to the total, ongoing for profit, destruction of our ecosystem support systems and moves the planet faster towards reaching more and more environmental Tipping Points.
Hopefully this draft Forest mg. plan acknowledges Global Warming and works to curb, slow and stop globally degradation of climate and for a stable global environment, by not slash burning, not transporting cut trees 100's of miles to mills, or by selling uncut peeler logs overseas as export raw trees.
If this plan fails to acknowledge that it's impacts effect global warming, it should be revised to honor and protect the global environment from damages due to carbon generation from Slash burning, transporting logs 100s of miles to be milled or to allow these cleared forests to be exported to Asia and cutting trees over 170 years.

How does this Draft Mg. Plan honor Native American lands within these forests? It possibly does little to bring in the tribal forestry staff to review and provide feedback to OSU Dept. of Forest Science. These forested areas as open prairies, meadows and balds in the Coast Range, where well used for generations of Native Americans. Native Americans should be included in reviewing and developing this Draft Forest Mg. Plan, in these State of Oregon owned forests.

How are the youth involved in this Draft Mg. Plan? Youth will inherit a more destroyed planet from the implementation of this Mg. Plan.

This Draft Mg. Plan possibly strongly contributes towards moving us all to a destroyed planet, destabilizing by global warming, and triggering of tipping points that can not be stopped by human ingenuity and sweat.

I have enjoyed walking in the Soap Creek side of McDonald Forest in the old growth patch and finding active Red Tree Vole nest materials. Logging commercially in trees over 170 years is old growth removal and with it goes habitat for: Red Tree Vole, Northern Spotted Owl, Flying Squirrel, and all the species found in State Owned, Coast Range Forests.
Old growth 170 years tree removal for sale/export over to Asia of these older trees for high profitability to College of Forestry's Budget, should not be calculated as environmentally profitable but be counted as a loss in the value of these forests over the long term to provide free,
ecologic stability under the threat of Global Warming.
Please revise this management plan to reflect how our current planetary life support system's are in rapid decline, species of every type are going extinct over shorter time periods. Please make sure that any revised mg. plan for these State Owned forests clearly recognizes all pending threats to our existence from global warming and unstoppable changes driven by global warming, to the planets overall total, global environmental stability.
Slash burning wood debris on the forest floor from clearcuts adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Burning slash turns into more tons of CO2 and adds to global climate dysfunction, and fuels global environmental destabilization by unstoppable, environmental destabilization Tipping Point processes which are underway.
Clearcutting trees over 80- 170 years, slash burning, both equally damage the global atmosphere. Trees over 80-170 years old, sequester carbon at a record rate and should not be removed to make boards or saw dust out of them. Trees over 80-170 years support complex native forest ecosystem ecology and should be retained to support these fragile ecosystems as private lands are rotational forested cut at 25-30 years and cleared to 100% each 25-30 years.

Cutting trees over 170 years needs to be banned/removed from all future Draft Forest Mg. Plans.

Does OSU Dept. of Forest Sciences, running the Elliott State Research Forest reflect similar policies and practices as are proposed in this Draft Forest Management Plan 2025? That would not be research forestry, but industrial forestry in the coast range, one of the world's best tree growing regions, and one of the most industrialized forest mg. areas on the planet.

Please withdraw this Draft Forest Mg. Plan and work to slow this process down. Involve the Citizens of Oregon and of Corvallis to have more people able to get involved in this process, instead of rushing this plan through to law. Passing this plan into law during the 2025 OSU summer break when half of Corvallis residents are gone, and not many students are present on campus to participate in this final comment period provides this plan, little if any public involvement in this Draft Mg. Plan process.

Update this Forest Mg. Plan draft to reflect best management practices developed by OSU students and staff over decades of work/researching, discovery and study similar to what is proposed in management for the Elliott SRForest.
Hopefully the Elliott State Research Forest mg. plan was redesigned to be somewhat environmentally sustainable, in specific area’s and will not be driven by underlying need to generate cash to support OSU Dept. of Forestry and the Division of State Lands who possibly are cooperatively managing the ESRForest together with staff from the ODForestry, make sure OSU Dept. of Forest Science cares for the Elliott to remain a complex coastal rain forest and not a massive industrial forestry complex, Coast Range Forest plantation monocultural moon scape.

OSU Dept. of Forest Sciences has a long and distinguished history of research and discovery that have changed the way forest science operates from the dark ages, to become a somewhat more environmentally aware and wholistic Ecosystem approach to growing and harvesting trees in these Coastal Rain Forests. .

Cutting a 450 year old Douglas Fir in McDonald Forest in the Soap Creek drainage was not right and reflected poor management practice in action from OSU Dept of Forestry and their timber firm hired to clearcut this sale. Stopping the cutting of old growth in this sale area, stopped OSU Dept. of Forestry from removing the last old growth stand in the creek drainage this 450 year old Douglas Fir was existing it.
OSU Dept. of Forest Science does not need to be continuously thought of as the industrial forestry Dept who is able to keep on making revenue for the Dept. by allowing clearcuts in forests owned by the State Of Oregon, and with this Mg. Plan Draft to allow forests with age classes over 170 years to be cut, across all of these State Owned Forests this Mg. Plan Draft applies to.

I am in opposition to this Draft Forest Mg. Plan 2025 and support that the OSU Board of Trustee's/OSU Forestry Dept Chair, withdrawal this application and call for it to be revisited with an environmentally sustainable lens and not an industrial forestry clearcut practices or policy, for quick profit, Ag driven management model/ plan.
OSU Dept. of Forest Science can consider by withdrawing this Draft Mg. Plan, to work to involve the public in creating a fair and Environmentally Sustainable Draft Forestry Mg Plan, over time.
With public involvement in this Draft Mg. Plan, by State Of Oregon residents, to be allowed the time to be positively involved in our OSU managed, but State of Oregon owned forests, to develop management processes and policies, that work better to restore and rebuild positive repore and respect from the public for OSU Dept. of Forestry.
We need to hear about how important these forests are for protecting our Global Climate, and not to be mined for continuously every ten years, for the need to make money for revenue generation for the Dept. of Forest Science, and to pay staff/Dean, for their ongoing work in Education and the Forest Sciences Dept.

What all new discoveries have been made in the recent decade of scientific literature supported by OSU Forest Science Dept. and graduate students from OSU? These discoveries can be highlighted in this management plan other then focusing on the industrial forest practice of hiring contracting logging firms to in a week, clear cutting and remove forests with trees over 170 years to fund the budget for the College Forestry at OSU.
Thanks, R.Foster Corvallis, Oregon

I hope you will consider my input to your draft plan. My input is based on my familiarity with McDonald Dunn, my background in natural resource and NEPA planning as well as cultural resources. One of my fondest memories of McDonald Dunn was having the opportunity to assist on a tour of the forest with visiting Taiwan foresters. This was probably 2003 or 2004. We walked the Old Growth trail. I took up the rear to make sure everyone kept up. As we passed one tree close to the trail on our right, each of the members of the international delegation put their hand out to touch the tree. There was a recognition of the unique feeling of being in a stand of old trees. That should not be lost so that future distinguished foreign visitors to the College of Forestry, that they may have the same experience and opportunity. The position of the College of Forestry and the Research Forests goes way beyond the generation of revenue. The Research Forest serves as an educational and research tool. Wearing a College of Forestry cap while walking the streets of Santiago, Chile in 2002 I heard in a crowd someone voice Oregon State University. Any decisions you make will have repercussions beyond the local area. Attached are my comments in the uploaded file.

Specific Comments on the Draft McDonald Dunn Forest Plan
Why does your land acknowledgement statement not clearly define Kalapuya instead of “a diversity of Indigenous Peoples?” The College of Forestry also has forests in other homelands, but McDonald Dunn is clearly Kalapuya land. This land acknowledgement is for McDonald Dunn not everywhere there are research forests associated with OSU. Oberteuffer for example should include references to the Cayuse and Nez Perce. A land acknowledgement statement is a commitment to manage the land with care and to protect those values that the pre-colonial peoples valued. Otherwise, this is just some person driving by in your truck that they did not pay for and waving thanks for the truck. Spending time on a land acknowledgement statement and then not identifying those concerns seems insincere.
In general, this document reminded me of the 1970s and 80s with the addition of identification of some concerns that are more recent. Forests have plans whether you are private or public. Are they multidisciplinary lists of concerns or do they represent a truly interdisciplinary communication between disciplines needs to be better clarified.
Here are my comments with the associated page numbers.
P 5 Under Goals and stewardship why aren’t tribal issues discussed? Are the cultural resources just “other resource values?”
P 34 Where does the 20,000 date for Indigenous occupation come from, see also page 37. Is this in reference to the 18,250 date for Rimrock Draw near Burns, Oregon? I don’t think there is such a date in the Willamette Valley. In conversations with Kathryn Harrison who was active in getting the Grand Ronde restored and a tribal chair, she said her people had been here forever. There appears to be an assumption by the writer that the Kalapuya are late arrivals by constantly referring to nebulous “Indigenous people” while at the same time referring to historical trauma. Later on, page 103 we have a Kalapuya Nation. These are sovereignty issues and they are being ignored. They are properly the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz. Where is this information coming from? Why isn’t Lindon Hylton’s thesis cited in the history section. It can be found at: . It was partially funded by the COF and a grant from the State Historic Preservation Office.
Why isn’t Oregon ash mentioned as having been controlled by fire pre contact? Ash trees have moved into what were camas fields. Burning kept the ash back and protected that essential food resource.
Page 37 refers to archaeological sites in Oregon date back to 13,000 BCE ( is this the 20,000 year old site mentioned on page 34?), this is not in the Willamette Valley. This comment also contrasts to an earlier statement citing Boyd that burning goes back 20,000 years. Let’s get this straight and consistent. Boyd is an overview, not MacDonald Dunn specific. The people are also referred to as the “Idegenous people.” They were moved to Siletz and Grand Ronde where they would become confederated tribes. There is NO mention of the treaties. Treaties were signed and lands ceded.
Page 38: This is Kalapuya land and not land of other Indigenous peoples. How performative that first paragraph on this page is. The second paragraph is in error. The Warm Springs only have a small sliver of the Willamette Valley further north associated with Willamette Falls as I understand it. What happened to the Commission on Indian Services and the State Historic Preservation OKice? Are the authors familiar with the State Cultural Cluster meetings? It is diKicult to see how broad statewide synthesis of information are misapplied to McDonald Dunn and not the actual information of the Willamette Valley or from McDonald Dunn specifically. Maybe you should have talked to the tribal cultural history peoples and to David Lewis on the OSU faculty. Maybe you should have talked to the cultural resources manager of the forest from 1994 to 2004. She knows approximately where that sweat lodge was.
Page 39 Why isn’t Goal 5 of LCDC addressed? Are you all aware of the potential changes to this rule targeted for July 2026?
Page 39 Under 2.5.2 regulations why aren’t the cultural resource laws linked. Did you all know that disturbing an archaeological site can aKect the applicant’s ability to acquire future funding under section 110 C of the National Historic Preservation Act as codified in 36 CFR 800.9?
Nowhere is there a mention in this history discussion the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) . This was part of the Vancouver Barracks under the direction of General George C.
Marshall. All CCC structures and remains are potentially significant to the National
Register of Historic Places due to this association with Marshall and the importance of the CCC work in reforesting the Tillamook Burn. Many CCC men went on to be important in numerous aspects of Oregon politics and also at the national level.
P 42 the discussion of visitor usage might be a more realistic interpretation if the size of
OSU and of Corvallis was included and how this population growth has changed through time. As for vehicles, many people did not own vehicles. Diachronic change can be useful information.
P49 The disease history is much more than this. This is again a generalization. Boyd identifies the diseases in the 1770s to 1850s as were smallpox, malaria, viral influenza, yellow fever, measles, typhus, bubonic plague, typhoid fever, cholera, and pertussis. There were also secondary deaths of individuals who did not get the diseases, but who died because there was nobody to take of them such as children and elders.
P50 Don’t the co-stewardship and ecocultural restoration emphasis contradict the timber harvest plan? This is really performative. If you really want co-stewardship, the tribes need to be paid for their time. They are busy with many tribal issues.
P 51 Item 9 seems to contradict tribal sovereignty of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz and Confederated. Tribes of Grand Ronde. I probably should have mentioned sovereignty in other places where this generalized “Indigenous people” keeps appearing. It is Kalapuya land.
Working on MOUs, you should involve the Oregon Commission on Indian Affairs to help identify the groups. In addition to the Cultural Cluster there is an Education Cluster and a Natural Resources Cluster. Why do I feel like you really do not want to talk to the tribes?
P 53 Glad to see the long-term studies recognized. I hope the list is complete. I did not double check it.
P 56 We finally get to the money. That is the real purpose of the plan. I am still looking for the creative approach.
P 66 After all that talk about the tribes, there is no mention on table 4 of their concerns. In the past the concerns have included camas swales and the potential to gather basketry materials that are not sprayed. There are many other traditional plants associated with the Kalapuya available at McDonald Dunn.
P 80 Why is there no post fire assessment to archaeological sites. Previously recorded sites may have been impacted. Previously undiscovered sites may be identified due to duff and vegetation removal.
P 83 Why isn’t the Emerald Ash Borer Readiness and Response Plan for Oregon cited? Here it is https://www.oregon.gov/odf/Documents/forestbenefits/eab-readiness-and-re... . I also think Dave Shaw is a good resource on the bug. As well as the thesis by Sean Privie as he includes McDonald Dunn and the Ag lands
I am finding it odd at how specific this section on insects and pathogens is and how generalized the tribal references are. How many archaeological sites are on McDonald Dunn?
P 85 3.7 Human dimensions- Why aren’t tribes mentioned here. You have a newly installed sweat lodge. I feel this is a continuation of systemic racism.
P 103 Numbers 14 and 15 under Table 7 should really be presented to Commissioner on
Indian Affairs and the tribal Councils of Siletz and Grand Ronde. I am not sure what a Kalapuya Nation is as such a term is not recognized at the Federal or State level. Are we being performative again or making it up as we go?
P 121 I think your glossary needs more work. The glossary looks like this was pulled from another document.
P 130 to 132 It looks like the cultural resource’s summary stuff. Again, I am not sure where that 20,000 year comes from at this point and it is not out of the question, but where it that site. The definitions are out of date, as the administrative rules have been changed. A qualified archaeologist is determined by the SHPO office. This section also clearly states McDonald Dunn is the ancestorial home of the Kalapuya, so why is there all that earlier stuff in the plan about Kalapuya and Indigenous peoples. Your earlier parts do not agree with your appendix. The cultural resource manager was hired in 1994. Contracting began in 2005. How is the contractor active in management?
P 132 should be the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde and Confederated Tribes of Siletz instead of Oregon tribes. If you need help to identify the appropriate tribes, ask the Commissioner on Indian AKairs. Also, the collection of artifacts on lands of the State is incorrect due to changes in the laws and rules. Please review the current revisions and amend this section including the new SHPO Guidelines and other info can be found here https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/OH/pages/archaeology.aspx . If the McDonald Dunn is a model for cultural resource management, then they should be mindful of changes on the laws. Given the director and the associate director of operations are in charge of cultural resources, what is their training? They should be required to take a training similar to what my previous employer offered. This was USDA- NRCS cultural resource modules. Modules 1-6 are online and Modules 7 and 8 include a field component. While they are at it, maybe they should also see about a course similar to USDA-NRCS’ course on Working Effectively with American Indian Tribes. What happened to the requirement for training as part of a settlement that was generated in compliance to an agreement with the OSU EEO Office about 20 years ago?

P140 Here we go again on generic tribal nations and not Kalapuya descendants or the appropriate Federally recognized tribal reference. Then in the next section it is the Kalapuya people. Please consistency, this is all kind of sloppy how terms in regard to the Kalapuya and tribal people are thrown around. This is disrespectful.
P 141-142 While conservation and restoration of Oregon white oak prairies is mentioned, there is no discussion of climate change and oaks. Fern Ridge reservoir is the northern extent of black oak in the Willamette Valley. This is approximately 60 miles from the forest. Assisted migration maybe should be considered. The acorns of the black oak are also more favored for food. Also are you familiar with the oak restoration projects in southwest Oregon by the Klamath Bird Observatory?
P143 It is finally mentioned that Confederated Tribes of Siletz and Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde are the descendants of the Kalapuya ancestors who were at the forest. Who are those many other generalized groups previously mentioned in this document?
P 144 Make sure in seeking Federal funds for restoration that there is full compliance with 36 CFR 800.9
P145 Under restoring ecological functions of low quality remanent …. suggested management actions include partnering with Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde and Confederated Tribes of Siletz, have you already talked to them about these types of activities? Given the high use of herbicides, cultural plants should be tested prior to any harvesting and use. Who would pick those costs up? Also, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service might be helpful. They generate cost lists.
P 146 Indigenous people universal term of “ancestor tree” is another generalization. There is a Kalapuya lexicon which might help you. I would contact Ester Stuzman who helped put the lexicon together. I have heard the Nez Perce have use the term “grandfather” tree.
P 147 Did you know the riparian areas were also important to the Kalapuya lifeways?
P150 I guess cultural resources are not a Forest Value. No attempt at metrics for this are presented. You spend a lot of time mentioning indigenous people in this document in a very general way, including some items which are not of relevance to the homeland of the Kalapuya. Evidently recreation acceptability is a value and not the presence of the Kalapuya. Cultural resources are a non-renewable resource.

"Dear Planning People,

I recently learned about this planning process for the OSU forests and have some observations to offer:

First, your webform is CRAP! It was hard to find this form (buried at the bottom of this webpage, but not even referenced on the main page about the forest plan). It is clear you don't really want the public to submit comments!

Your form has a check box to keep my name anonymous, but frankly, I don't trust any of you! I have friends at OSU and I've heard so many tales of how people in charge (like the dean and associate dean overseeing this process) have retaliated against people who they perceive as critics and threatening to their interests. I am sure you know who these folks are because you have attacked them in your communications! This is VERY WELL KNOWN by those of us who use the forests!

I see so many comments from timber company executives (many of whom are also alumni of the Forestry Department). I cannot imagine how all of these people came to comment here unless they were contacted by someone at OSU and told they needed to comment (in favor of logging the forests). It's as clear as day! These are NOT people who generally follow a forest planning process!

So, my question is, how did you all convince these people to make their comments and who did it? The dean? The associate deans? The forest director (who everyone knows was a BAD APPLE)? Have you people no sense of objectivity and integrity?!

I was also very surprised that you don't show who is on the planning team or committee. It seems like you've made it difficult to even figure out who is behind the curtain. How can people who work for a public university behave this way? Honestly, you all seem like you're part of some secret organization or organized crime!

Which I guess you all really are! My friends all talk about how the people in charge of the forests are paid by timber receipts, how the dean is a total industry supporter, how this has gone on for many decades and everyone in Corvallis understands this if they've been around and have any common sense.

I want to know how you all live with yourselves, knowing your whole system is built on destroying these forests that we love. How do you all look in the mirror and not feel deep shame? How do you all keep acting like everything you're doing is normal and okay when you know that it is not???

No one I've talked to expects any of this to change. OSU has a long history of arrogant behavior when it comes to the forests they manage. I have lost track of how many times various officials from the college have threatened that they could take away the public's right to enjoy the forests. What kind of people do that??? BULLIES!!! Besides, you need to understand Corvallis citizens would NEVER EVER put up with that kind of BS! Try shutting the forests down to recreationist and you'd have a massive rebellion in short order! Actually, I wish you'd do it. Maybe that's what's needed to get you to understand that you really don't have the power you think you do!

I am honestly disgusted by everything I've seen, not just on your website and in the new forest plan, but having lived in the community and watched how OSU foresters/leaders behave. It is REALLY SHAMEFUL!!!

I'll quit my ranting here, but these are not YOUR forests!!! People like me are everywhere. We will NEVER GIVE UP!!!"

I am wondering if someone can tell me why the comments have not been updated since May. I know lots of people who have sent emails to OSU about this and none of their messages are showing up. It seems like maybe someone is intentionally not displaying comments because they know it might encourage others to also share their concerns. Who is in charge of this? Why aren't you posting email messages or updating comments? How do you think that makes you look?

This Forest plan builds on the 2005 plan to provide highly interesting and useful information in Chapter 2. The paradigm shifts envisioned in Chapter 3 are laudable, but may be challenging to implement. My specific comments are as follows:

1. Regarding section 3.3.2, additional sources of revenue will be needed for prairie and oak savanna restoration, given the magnitude of work proposed in Appendix E. For example, the Buchanan Farm that runs the Tyee Winery has overseen the restoration of several hundred acres of wet prairie on their land, which was accomplished with several hundred thousand dollars of outside funding, as I recall. Exploring your options for restoration funding or finding additional collaborators, such as the Nature Conservancy, who might be willing to invest in and/or conduct restoration on the College forests, would be worth a try.

A substantial fraction of grant funds goes to the University as overhead, which is used for running labs, paying for utilities and funding support staff. One could certainly argue that some fraction of the overhead from grants utilizing the “Living Lab” should go to the McDonald-Dunn Forest.

2. Regarding your late successional management strategy, ring barking smaller trees would be a non-invasive, cheap approach, which mimics the natural tree mortality that yields the snags used by wildlife. Felling trees and leaving the logs in place would increase downed woody debris, as is characteristic of old growth forests. This would increase local fine fuel densities over the short term, which might be an acceptable risk, given the small fraction of the total forest area to which this was applied.

Yes, the current old growth on the forest may be a novel state for this area (though not across western Oregon in general), but is valued as is by many visitors. Thus, leaving some of this forest unmanaged might be more acceptable to the public and could serve in comparative studies of your yet untried methods.

3. On page 85 you suggest reducing shade tolerant species, such as grand fir, in your guidelines for improving forest health. I suggest a more nuanced approach that recognizes the importance of site conditions on forest health. Grand fir trees are already dying on drier sites and their snags and fallen boles are contributing to wildlife and eventually soil humus. But in the Soap creek drainage on the north facing slopes below roads 700 and then 760 there are impressive grand fir trees up to 170 ft tall in mixed stands with Douglas-fir, that would have established or been released as saplings after that area was logged 70+ years ago. Standing dead grand firs are currently very rare in these stands, perhaps no more than one would expect due to background mortality.

4. Regarding biodiversity, your emphasis on maintenance of uncommon hardwood cover types, such as madrone, is commendable, but the maintenance of uncommon coniferous species is also important. These include redcedar and hemlock. As you note, there is a small area in the upper Soap Creek Basin in which hemlock occurs – as well as redcedar, though the distributions of these two species differs somewhat over this area. These trees are within the large area that was forested in 1800 (Fig. 8), but was logged around the time that the College acquired it in 1948 (Figs 11 & 19). Nonetheless, some hemlocks and cedars survived, perhaps as advanced regeneration, and grew up to serve as seed sources for the current understory saplings and young trees of these species.

This image outlines a potential hemlock and redcedar reserve in an area that surrounds the north end of the North Newt timber sale. Second-growth redcedar trees and saplings are abundant in parts of the upper right lobe and a small grove of old growth cedars stands adjacent the watercourse in the lower left lobe by edge of the North Newt clearcut. A sparse scattering of hemlock trees and more abundant saplings occur in the center lobe. A few older hemlocks and some younger ones stand adjacent the northwest edge of the North Newt area.

This area of 30 to 35 acres is drawn to include a buffer in order to maintain the current microclimate of the interior trees. It includes part of one of your Ecosystems of Concern areas, and much of the hemlock vine maple salal plant association shown in Fig. 9. The extent to which these hemlocks survive future global warming is uncertain, but they are healthy now. Such a reserve would provide an excellent opportunity to monitor the health and survival of both hemlock and redcedar over the coming decades. Again, site conditions may be an important factor affecting tree survival.