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 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.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan (or Plan). As you may know, Hampton Lumber is a fourth-generation, family-owned company that has been operating and headquartered in Oregon since 1942. Many Hampton family members, as well as employees, are Oregon State University (OSU) alumni, and the company has been a longtime supporter of the College of Forestry (or College). We are writing today to express our concerns over the direction of this draft Plan and what it means for the future of OSU’s research forests and students.  The management changes in the draft Plan appear to be a shift from an active, working forest with a variety of research opportunities to more passive management with a singular focus on older forest types with little active management. The proposal indicates a desire to balance environmental, societal, and economic pillars, but the reduction in timber harvest volume and increase in older stands puts the forest and the College on a misguided trajectory – similar to the plight of our federal forests.  The draft Plan proposes a 28 percent reduction in timber harvests from 6 MMBF to 4.3 MMBF, while at the same time more than doubles late-successional forest stands. The draft also calls for longer harvest rotations and fewer even-aged stands. This shift will not only hinder economic opportunities for the College, but it also succumbs to the mindset that active management and robust silvicultural practices are somehow not sustainable forestry.  We understand and are sympathetic to the pressure you face from public outcry from a vocal minority over their misunderstanding of what an active research forest should look like. However, OSU should use this as an opportunity to educate the misinformed rather than give in to their demands without considering the impacts on the College, students, and industry it supports.  We are passionate about our industry and want graduates from the College to be eager to join our collective workforce. We seek vigorous research and experiments that range from a variety of forest and management types. Unfortunately, this plan is not set up to achieve the outcomes we desire. We hope that you consider changes to the draft that are more reflective of the 2005 Forest Plan.  Please know that Hampton hasn’t purchased a timber sale from the McDonald Dunn in many years. We write principally out of concern for the management direction and cultural shift we fear this draft plan signals. As alumni and supporters of the university, we respectfully ask that you reconsider.   

Dr. Tom DeLuca
Dean of the College of Forestry, OSU
140 Peavy Forest Science Center
3100 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, Or 97331

In Response to: Draft 2025 McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan

Dear Dean DeLuca,

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Forest Plan for the McDonald-Dunn Research Forest. The Oregon Society of American Foresters (OSAF) has nearly 700 members, making it the largest state affiliate of the national Society of American Foresters (SAF). Our mission is to support and represent the forestry profession by advancing the science, education, technology, and practice of forestry. OSAF members work throughout the state in a variety of organizations, including local, state and federal agencies; higher education institutions; Partnerships & Collaborative, and the private sector, including industrial and non-industrial forest landowners. The objectives of the Society are:

1. To advance the science, technology, education, and practice of professional forestry;

2. To enhance the competency of its members;

3. To establish professional excellence;

4. To use the knowledge, skills, and conservation ethic of the profession to ensure the continued health and use of forest ecosystems and the present and future availability of forest resources to benefit society; and to provide an opportunity for better communication among the individual members, their regional representatives and the Society.

Our mission and these objectives guide our comments on the draft plan. We strongly support the College of Forestry’s stated intent to provide opportunities for research, teaching, and outreach while maintaining sustainable forest management practices.

Overview

We recognize and appreciate the extensive planning process that engaged faculty, stakeholders, and Tribal partners (p. 6–9). The effort to incorporate diverse perspectives, strengthen relationships with Tribal Nations, and emphasize resilience and adaptability is commendable. We note that the planning process occurred over a period of 2.5 years and involved two key committees, the Faculty Planning Committee and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the latter comprised of an array of key outside stakeholders. In addition, there was a robust process for gathering input and comments from OSU faculty & staff and the interested public through public input sessions and providing an open and on- going opportunity for the public to provide comments via a web-link.

We’ve reviewed the mission, vision, and goal statements, which not only covers the McDonald-Dunn Forest, but all the Research Forests managed by the College of Forestry. We agree with these and note that the 10 goal statements are appropriate and wide-ranging and cover the most important aspects of an actively and sustainably managed research forest.

The McDonald-Dunn Research Forest is unique in that the research paradigm focuses on evaluating tradeoffs of ecosystem services in sustainably managed forests. There are often questions from forest managers, forest owners, and the public about managed forests. Developing a scientific basis for evaluating tradeoffs can assist forest managers in balancing forest management objectives. The environmental, ecological, and social aspects of sustainability have been incorporated in the overall approach. It is important for the public to see a sustainably managed forest in their backyard. However, we have concerns that the current draft plan, as written, will reduce opportunities for applied forestry research, limit the development of operational and workforce skills, and undermine the financial sustainability of the McDonald-Dunn Forest.

Commitment to Active Management and Research

The McDonald-Dunn Research Forest must remain a premier site for demonstrating active, sustainable forest management. The plan (p. 7) aspires to showcase a “model for actively and sustainably managed forest systems,” yet the proposed land allocation and harvest reductions suggest a transition in focus with less emphasis on management and research on production forestry along with its association silvicultural systems, logging methods, and assessment of cost-effective practices. Reducing annual harvest from 6 MMBF (2005 plan) to 4.3 MMBF (p. 67) and cutting the proportion of short-rotation even-aged management from 26 percent to 10 percent (p. 68, Fig. 22) will significantly reduce research and teaching opportunities in the very practices dominating Oregon’s productive forestlands. This shift is inconsistent with OSAF’s position supporting active management to achieve and maintain healthy forests and ensure workforce readiness. Applying this alternative management emphasis across the forest means less applied research on industry standard harvest prescriptions and all of the practical engineering, logging systems, and innovative approaches that go along with it. However, we are hopeful the McDonald-Dunn Research Forest will continue showcasing how active and intensive management is not incongruent with wildfire resilience, climate resilience, and overall landscape resilience.

Wildlife habitat has been raised as a significant concern by local stakeholders. A wide range of forest age classes provides the structural diversity needed to support diverse species and “keep common species common,” as noted by wildlife professionals. Active management through a mix of even-aged and multi-aged strategies creates early seral conditions, mid-rotation stands, and older forests, ensuring habitat for species that depend on different stages of forest succession. Reducing short- rotation areas risks losing these early-seral habitats that are critical for many species, including pollinators, ungulates, and songbirds.

The Research Forest exists not to mimic preservationist approaches such as “proforestation” but to lead in demonstrating solutions for the future desired by the broader forest sector. Proforestation1, which seeks to ban timber harvesting and active management on public lands, is not supported by science as a long-term carbon or climate strategy. Sustainable management offers far greater benefits by reducing disturbance risks, storing carbon in durable wood products, and maintaining diverse wildlife habitats. Inaction does not protect forests from wildfire, insects, or disease; it increases their vulnerability. Thankfully the Research Forest stands as a beacon modeling adaptive, active strategies rather than passive management. Where lighter touch management direction is applied, research should be applied to monitor the real benefits and costs that flow for those decisions on carbon within forests and harvested woods products pools, on wildfire risk and fuels profiles, on jobs and socioeconomics, on milling and logging infrastructure, and on tree to tree competition and vigor among many other factors that must be weighed by foresters, biologists, planners, the public, policymakers, and even the justice system in determining what treatment decisions directly and indirectly affect.

Although we feel the reduction of even-aged short-rotation may produce fewer opportunities to research common forest practices across Oregon, we appreciate the overall thought and balance across age classes and seral-classes in the McDonald-Dunn Research Forest.

Economic Sustainability and Revenue Expectations

Economic self-sufficiency has long been a guiding principle of the Research Forests. The plan eliminates the $500,000 annual contribution target for the College of Forestry (noted in previous planning discussions but absent from this draft). Table G3 (p. 154) previously included jobs as an outcome metric, which has also been removed. Without clear financial targets, accountability for sustaining operations and by extension, research and teaching, remains uncertain.

We urge OSU to clarify:

• How will reduced harvest levels affect the ability to cover operating costs, fund monitoring (p. 99), and maintain staff?

• What alternative revenue sources are secured (p. 58), and how will these be implemented without compromising core research and management objectives?

OSAF supports commercial timber harvest as an appropriate and essential tool on public and research forests when carefully planned by professionals2.

Allocation of Management Strategies

The new allocation substantially increases acres dedicated to late-successional forest reserves (Fig. 23, p. 69) and long-rotation management while reducing even-aged short-rotation stands by more than half (Fig. 22, p. 68). While diversity of strategies is important, this allocation appears to prioritize less intensive management approaches at the expense of active experimentation and applied research on intensively managed systems3.

Key concerns:

• Even-Aged Short-Rotation – Rotations 35-45 Years (10%): There is a reduction from 26% in the previous Forest Management Plan. This drastic reduction sends a signal that short-rotation forestry is less important, despite its dominance in Oregon’s private sector. There continues to be a significant need to research tradeoffs, operational efficiencies, and strategies associated with short-rotation forestry.

•Even-Aged Long-Rotation – Rotations 60-90 Years (30%): Benefits include carbon capture & storage, older forest structure for wildlife, aesthetics, and the production of high- quality forest products. However, rotations up to 90 years create opportunity costs and potential public controversy over harvesting older stands.

• Multi-Aged/Multi-Species (23%): There are still many unknowns about this form of management, so in many ways applying them in scientifically sound fashion will allow the College to provide important information on aspects of their applications, forest growth, development of various ages classes, economics including logging costs, and forest aesthetics. These treatments in many ways are hard to do and will require frequent re-entry to ensure they achieve intended ecological, economic, and social objectives.

• Late Successional Forests (10%): We are supportive of the Late Successional Forest strategy as it leaves open some level of management (very light touch) to mimic disturbances that shaped their development. The McDonald-Dunn occupies the dry end of the Douglas-fir range and historically was influenced by period disturbances that maintained a more open condition.

• Ecosystems of Concern (10%): Focused on important restoration and maintenance of oak savanna and woodlands, prairie and meadows, and riparian habitats. The restoration emphasis is an increasing aspect of forest management in efforts to enhance and maintain important habitats in Oregon on private, state, federal, tribal, county and public land trust lands. There is an increasing need for students in the College of Forestry to be aware of these activities as they are potential areas of application and employment when they enter the forestry workforce.

• Teaching and Long-Term Research (17%): This is appropriate given proximity to Oregon State University for student hands-on learning and for conducting research although this specific purpose should overlay the entire forest. Given the five management strategies and the percentages applied across the 11,500 acres of the McDonald-Dunn Forest, OSAF believes the Plan provides a variety of forest age classes. This will be important for creating conditions for future research to evaluate wildlife response to each of the management strategies. OSAF supports a targeted mix of younger and older forests across the landscape.

Impact on Education, Workforce Development, and Donor Intent

Reducing harvest and management intensity directly affects opportunities for students to experience real-world forestry operations. Future professionals need hands-on exposure to harvesting systems, silvicultural prescriptions, and market realities. This plan risks creating a generation of graduates unfamiliar with active management, which is an existential concern for Oregon’s forest sector workforce.

Donors and alumni expect the Research Forest to embody OSU’s land-grant mission: advancing practical forestry. Limiting industry standard forestry research may undermine the confidence of stakeholders who support the college financially and professionally.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

The plan calls for robust monitoring (p. 99–109) but staffing and funding remain unclear. Having a comprehensive monitoring plan will allow the College to modify management strategies as appropriate given disturbance regimes, application of new or innovative management techniques, and economic realities.

The monitoring plan also holds the College of Forestry and forest managers accountable to the mission, vision, and goals of the forests. However, we are concerned that existing staff (6.25 FTE) are at full capacity and their ability to fulfill the multitude of monitoring plan tasks will be extremely difficult. Given the lower harvest level and revenue, it is unlikely additional staff can be hired to fulfill this important aspect of the plan. Transparency and feasibility in monitoring are critical to maintain credibility.

Summary of Recommendations

1. Reaffirm the Research Forest’s role as a working forest dedicated to applied research on active management.

2. Maintain a meaningful allocation for short-rotation forestry and operational studies to reflect real-world practices and support workforce readiness.

3. Reinstate clear revenue and accountability targets to ensure financial sustainability.

4. Explicitly address how reduced harvest and expanded reserves align with the mission to “demonstrate contemporary and innovative aspects of an active and sustainably managed forest” (p. 13).

5. Ensure that monitoring and adaptive management commitments are supported with adequate funding and staffing.

Conclusion

The mission of Research Forests is threefold: ”to create opportunities for education, research, and outreach to address the economic, social, and environmental values of current and future generations of Oregonians and beyond; to demonstrate how an actively and sustainably managed forest fosters economic prosperity, biodiversity conservation, and resilience amidst disturbances and global change; to support social and cultural values of forests, enhancing the wellbeing of local communities, Tribal communities, and society.” We believe the McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan aims to fulfill this mission and we look forward to seeing the forest management plan put into action in the coming years.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft McDonald-Dunn Forest Plan.

Sincerely,

Amanda Sullivan-Astor, CF
2025 OSAF State Chair