"Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft of the plan. Please consider the following recommendations as constructive suggestions intended to support the continued refinement of the document. As a new faculty member, I acknowledge that some of these points may already have been addressed, but I hope they prove helpful. My comments are informed by my background in the field, particularly in optimization, which frames my perspective. • Inclusion of Water as a Forest Value: It is not clear how water is accounted as a critical forest value. It was not explicitly included in the metrics developed to evaluate trade-offs across land allocation scenarios (Table 4). Clarifying this or incorporating water-related impacts and tradeoffs may strengthen the plan. • Job Type Differentiation: In the job-related metrics, it would be beneficial to distinguish between permanent and temporary jobs, as each has distinct social implications and contributes differently to community. • Monitoring and Sustainability Index: I recommend considering the development of a sustainability index for the entire McDonald-Dunn forest as part of the monitoring framework. This index could synthesize various desired impacts into a scorecard format, allowing for both disaggregated and aggregate analysis. Such a tool may also enhance communication with the public by presenting progress in a clear and accessible manner. Like the health of the patient, being the patient the landscape and forest. I can help with that if required. • Woodstock Model: Would it be possible to review the Remsoft Woodstock model used in the analysis, particularly how the constraints were handled? This would allow for more detailed feedback and potentially support further refinement of the model's structure and assumptions."
Dale Draeger
07/18/2025
I have often ridden my horse or driven on Tampico Road past OSU Forestry land after a harvest. It is called a ‘research’ forest, but this is difficult to understand because the same practices are done over and over. Passing a clear cut, one can see that there are just a few trees left standing, separated from each other. Months pass. Here comes the wind and rain and those solitary trees have no protection and they die or are blown down. If someone is doing research, surely they could see that this practice doesn’t make for an environment where trees thrive! Where is the study, where is the learning here? Trees like to group, hence the phrase, ‘stand of trees’. It appears pretty obvious that OSU functions more on a logging company model. Years ago Dunn Forest was a heaven of beautiful trails. Mountain bikers had affectionate names for the trails through the trees and ferns. Now the trails and trees are gone. What remains is bulldozed ground. Is the importance to you about this ‘Public Land’ all about how much money you can make? I know for sure that is not every student’s reason for enrolling in Forestry at OSU. Many who enroll want to preserve what little old growth we have left in our state/country. Let’s give them something to get inspired about! Can OSU be an inspiration for change and preservation? Now that would be something to be known for! Not giving a student the ability to be hired by a logging company.
Amanda Larson
07/18/2025
I am a very concerned resident of Corvallis with the OSU proposed forest management plan. The proposed plan would have disastrous environmental consequences that will compromise the health and safety of the forest and community. Expanding the practice of clear cutting to 40 to 80 acres will have catastrophic impacts to wildlife, recreation, watersheds and ecosystem diversity. As a research institution and facility of higher learning, you should know better! Another area of concern is the expansion of logging into old growth areas of the forest. These areas are critical to biodiversity and once they are gone, they do not come back! Please protect the very little old growth that remains in the forest. When is OSU going to change course from short term profit, to recognizing the more important long term value that a healthy forest brings to this community? Why is OSU not focused on becoming a leader in selective, sustainable forest management? Why has OSU failed to value and protect this vital resource that has so much to offer future generations? This matter hits deep within our immediate family. My family survived the devastating Paradise wildfire in 2018, due to climate change, and the negative changes to our forests. I do not want others to go through what our family had to go through. We need to HEAL our forests!! We need to COLLABORATE and PROTECT our forests for future generations before it is too late. This plan is a disgrace. Please do not implement this plan and reconsider protecting and being stewards of the land that you are responsible for managing. Greediness is the main reason why humans, the earth, and all the living things are profoundly suffering. Please care about our community, the plants, and the animals that live here. Let's create, not destroy! Be the leaders in sustainable forest management!!
When you know better, do better!
Seth A Barnes
07/18/2025
Attn: Oregon State University College of Forestry 140 Peavy Forest Science Center 3100 SW Jefferson Way Corvallis, OR 97331
RE: Draft 2025 MacDonald-Dunn Forest Plan
Dear Oregon State University College of Forestry,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft 2025 MacDonald-Dunn Forest Plan (draft plan). The Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC) is a statewide trade association representing large private forest landowners and wood products manufacturers in Oregon. OFIC’s core mission is to advocate on behalf of its members to maintain a positive, stable business operating environment for Oregon's forest products community that fosters long-term investments in healthy forests; to ensure a reliable timber supply from Oregon's public and private forestlands; and to promote stewardship and sustainable management of forestlands that protect environmental values and maintain productive uses on all forestlands. OFIC members’ businesses employ tens of thousands of Oregonians in Oregon’s forest sector, including many professional foresters, engineers and managers who are alumni of the College of Forestry (COF) at Oregon State University (OSU). Central to the mission of land grant universities are the ideals of education, scientific research and outreach, to promote economic development through practical application of knowledge. The OSU COF website lists its mission as an effort to “explore, evaluate, communicate and catalyze new possibilities in forestry and advance sustainable solutions to challenges facing society.” As a research forest owned and operated by the OSU COF, the MacDonald-Dunn Forest (Mac-Dunn) is a direct reflection of those combined missions. The forest was donated with the intention of being actively managed to provide a living laboratory to students and faculty to explore, experiment, study, learn and demonstrate the values, ideals and possibilities surrounding forestry. The COF has a key role in educating tomorrow’s professional forestry workforce, generating world class research that supports sustainable management of public and private lands and demonstrating to the lay public what sustainable, actively managed forests look like. With this in mind, and in the spirit of constructive feedback intended to improve the plan to better achieve these objectives and aspirations for the Mac- Dunn Forest, OFIC offers the following important critiques.
1. The draft plan must keep management as a goal of every acre of the Mac-Dunn, with a particular focus on harvest and reforestation. Manipulating forest composition and structure is achieved primarily through harvest and reforestation - which are the basic tools of silviculture. The goal of the forest should always be to use active management to achieve desirable outcomes. We are concerned that this plan more than doubles the number of acres that will be designated on a trajectory towards late-successional forest. There are ample living laboratories of late successional forests in Oregon already: the Elliot State Research Forest, the H.J. Andrews, and the hundreds of thousands of acres set aside by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, to name a few. It’s implied within the draft plan that many of the acres that will be slated for this designation on the Mac-Dunn are currently of a younger age class and would benefit from activities to accelerate their trajectory towards a late- successional forest type. Furthermore, within the description of the Late-successional Forest Management Strategy, on page 63, the plan implies that areas where older forest already exists, no harvest will occur unless they are individual trees that must be removed for safety concerns. OFIC urges the COF to reconsider the plan to designate more acres going into this category, only to stagnate in perpetuity. Rather, the COF should use the abundant forests already available - as listed above - to conduct research on old forest reserves. On the acres already existing on the Mac Dunn in a late-successional state, it is our strongly held belief that the COF should utilize these areas to promote active management practices and challenge the dangerous and pervasive no-management paradigm that has led to catastrophic wildfires and insect infestations across thousands of acres of late successional reserves and wilderness areas on public lands throughout the western United States. Research has shown that harvest is an effective tool for increasing forest resiliency and preventing low-intensity fires from becoming stand-replacing events. If the COF desires to study and manage late successional forests, this should be done in combination with a research strategy that explores how to actively manage such forests to promote forest health and resiliency as well as economic opportunity. No trees in the Mac-Dunn should be precluded from harvest. Rather, the plan should give professional foresters the latitude to treat stands in accordance with sound forestry principles to promote the goals outlined above. Doing this will ensure that the COF stays on mission as a land-grant university.
2. Share more details on what went into the modeling, consider using a higher discount rate and explain the assumptions and constraints that were embedded in the modeling. In reviewing the modeling information that was provided, we found it odd that in some of the scenarios, despite more acres allocated for early harvest (“short rotations”), which would also presumably be acres that would require early harvest of older forests, the model was predicting a lower overall net revenue. Given that all discounted cash flow models prefer early returns on investments, this seems flawed. Subsequent conversations uncovered two potential reasons for this unexpected conclusion in the modeling: first, the use of a lower than industry standard discount rate (four percent), and second, a constraint on the model forcing it to harvest at an arbitrary average age that may be lower than optimal for the site classes associated with much of the Mac-Dunn Forest. The use of a four percent discount rate is inappropriate for the Mac Dunn. That discount rate is on the low end of what is used in state and federal discounted cash flow models. An industry standard of six to eight percent may be more appropriate. It was presented that four percent was used because that is the rate of return that the college could achieve with the best alternative investment. However, this is only half of the equation when picking an appropriate discount rate. We recommend that the college follow the standard practice of using the discount rate to account for other risks such as wildfire, insect outbreaks, disease or pathogens, market risks such as mill closures and log price fluctuation, regulatory risks, and social risks, all of which could lead the college to higher constraints and lower revenue production. When all these risks are considered, a strong case is made for a higher discount rate than the four percent that was used. Furthermore, it would behoove the COF to remove the distinction of “short rotation” altogether and instead let the model find the optimal harvest volume at the age it chooses, while using an appropriate discount rate and other relevant constraints. This is, in fact, how most of the industry does similar modeling - we are unaware of any landowner that artificially constrains their modeling efforts to harvest at certain average ages. Given the site classes associated with the Mac-Dunn, it is possible that a rotation closer to 50 to 60 years may be optimal. OFIC recommends re-modeling with a higher discount rate - closer to industry standard - without an artificial constraint for a particular age, thus allowing the model to find the optimal harvest rotation for the forest. This could be re-imagined as a “sustainable harvest strategy” and replace both the “short” and “long” rotation strategies currently listed. It would likely result in higher volume and revenue outputs, and more closely align with private land management, which would allow better opportunities for studies more relevant to the forest sector in Oregon.
3. Add language that clearly articulates the parameters around what constitutes an “appropriate” time or circumstance for pursuit of an alternative revenue stream for the Mac-Dunn. On page 58 of the draft plan, it states that “adaptive funding strategies will be pursued when appropriate.” Alternative revenue streams should be pursued only when they fit the mission, vision and purpose of the OSU COF as a land grant university, and the Mac- Dunn as an “actively and sustainably managed forest.” It would be inappropriate to adopt an alternative funding source that would constrain the COF’s ability to harvest or otherwise alter standard and accepted sustainable forestry practices. To do so would be off-mission and harm or completely dismantle the university’s ability to deliver on their land grant purpose to the sector and to the citizens of Oregon. This would be a devastating outcome, one that should be avoided by providing clearly articulated expectations for these potential alternative revenue streams up front in the plan itself.
4. Provide additional inventory data and projections. The draft plan is missing key data that is standard in many management plans. The plan is missing an estimate of current or projected timber volume by species, estimated volumes by land management objective over time, estimated growth across the forest, etc. We would like to see the planning horizon and planning periods presented in the model. These planning horizons should be at least two full rotations in length in order to capture how the proposed silvicultural prescriptions will change the forest over time as each stand is transitioned from current condition to the regenerated condition under a 2 LP harvest scheduling model. We would also like to see more detailed information regarding the standing live tree inventory, standing dead and periodic growth across the forest. Currently the draft plan provides sparse details, primarily on page 47, showing only the current average age classes and a three paragraph, broad description of site class, species composition and tree heights.
5. Provide additional information regarding targets and baselines for measuring the relative success of the draft plan. There was no baseline or minimum amount of revenue identified as necessary to pay for staff, maintenance, etc. Without this clear benchmark the forest is at risk of running a deficit. Furthermore, there is no clearly defined revenue goal. Without these factors, it is difficult to understand the benchmarks for success of this plan from a revenue perspective.
6. Certain statements in the draft plan should be removed or re-written. We request that the COF review the plan for language that should be written more clearly or more appropriately. Below are a couple of examples:
a. On page 58 the draft plan states that “the funding model for the research forests was created at a time when research forests nationwide functioned like industrial plantations.” This statement is incredibly broad and presumptuous and is not supported by tangible evidence. There are no references in this document to the history of other research forests across the nation, nor is there an explanation as to what is meant by the phrase “industrial plantations.” Surely it is not the conclusion of the COF that forests across all private land ownerships nationwide were historically managed in a homogeneous manner. This is a paragraph that should be re-written with clear language that removes bias and overly broad or false statements.
b. The use of the term “short rotation” throughout the document should be reconsidered. What is short? This is a term that betrays a universally-agreed-upon definition. Section 2 of these comments offers a helpful alternative to such a subjective, value-laden language.
OFIC values the symbiotic, collaborative relationship that has existed between Oregon’s forest sector and the COF at OSU. The land grant mission of the university is the foundation of that relationship, and as such, should always be reflected in the purpose and goals expressed in the management plan for the Mac Dunn Forest. OFIC appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on behalf of our members for ways that this plan can be improved to better reflect and deliver on this broad mission and looks forward to continuing its long and fruitful relationship with the OSU COF.
Sincerely, Seth A Barnes>br> OFIC Director of Forest Policy OSU Alumni, FM, Class of 2002
Damon Motz-Storey
07/18/2025
Oregon State University Board of Trustees
652 Kerr Administration Building
Corvallis, OR 97331
Submitted via email
Subject: OSU’s Draft Management Plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest
Dear OSU Trustees,
On behalf of the 58,000 statewide members and supporters of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, we
urge you to advocate for better stewardship of the public forests under OSU’s management. As the
highest oversight body of our public university, you are the ultimate stewards of these amazing natural
resources that belong to all Oregonians.
The Oregon Chapter has long encouraged OSU to prioritize ecological considerations and public values
over OSU’s traditional management and monetization of the research forests. The Sierra Club’s core
values reflect both the best available science and the public interest, which align with protecting older
forests. These same values ought to coincide with OSU’s educational and research missions.
Unfortunately, the draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest falls short in a number of
alarming ways. The substantial amount of clearcutting and lack of meaningful protections for older forests
are both contrary to scientific leadership and the public interest. The continued focus on industrial
forestry, with its adverse impacts like herbicide use and slash-burning, contrasts sharply with the lack of
consideration of ecological forest management. The deliberate removal of specific protections for older
forests (like the 160- year cutting limit) and expansive allowance for discretionary cutting (under the guise
of restoration, fuels reduction, and public safety) are deeply concerning. The reliance on the low bar of the
Oregon Forest Practices Act and the absence of enforceable constraints is equally alarming. The plan is
full of “guidelines” and “recommendations”, but lacks meaningful and firm commitments.
We are also deeply concerned by the echoing of timber-industry propaganda and the lack of substantive
measures to mitigate climate change. Numerous studies, including those of renowned OSU scientists,
have concluded that the forest sector contributes ~1/3 of our state's total GHG emissions.1 The language
of the draft plan seems designed to downplay the pivotal role of forest carbon sequestration in addressing
the climate crisis. This is especially disappointing, as OSU’s own scientists have been leaders in the field of
forest carbon and climate research for decades. The plan’s forest carbon metric ignores below-ground
carbon losses, skewing the results in favor of clearcutting, which dramatically reduces carbon stored in
the soil. These are just a few examples of the systemic bias that can be found throughout the draft plan.
The College of Forestry’s technical competency is also undermined by the draft plan’s reliance on
Woodstock software, a traditional linear modeling tool which is heavily biased in favor of traditional
timber management. The resulting metrics are largely meaningless. The same goes for the surveys of
forest users, which falsely concluded there are relatively minor differences in public perception of
clearcuts vs. older forests. Independent surveys have repeatedly found that a large percentage of
Oregonians are opposed to clearcutting and favor increased protections for older forests.2 Despite facing
overwhelming criticism for these types of shortcomings, OSU has failed to address them in the draft plan.
The continual reluctance of the planning team to improve their approach undermines confidence in the
draft plan and the College of Forestry’s integrity and competence.
We have previously shared our deep concerns about the biases in the process used to develop this forest
plan.3 It does not come as a surprise that the resulting plan is heavily skewed toward industrial forestry at
the expense of ecological considerations. What is perhaps most disappointing is that the OSU
administration has failed to take effective corrective actions along the way. State law calls on the trustees
of our public universities to provide transparency and public accountability. OSU’s draft plan for the
McDonald-Dunn and the flawed process that produced it show that public accountability is largely absent.
We call on you to intervene and reset the forest planning process. It is time for OSU to demonstrate better
stewardship of this public forest.
Respectfully,
Damon Motz-Storey
Oregon Chapter Director, Sierra Club
1821 SE Ankeny St, Portland, OR 97214
Susan Salafsky
07/18/2025
I am deeply concerned about the proposed management plan for the MacDonald-Dunn Forest, because it prioritizes short-term profits from historical forest management practices over the sustainability of public resources. Thus, as written, the current forest management plan is counterproductive to long-term profits and forest health. Accordingly, it is in our best interests to revise the OSU draft forest management plan. To increase efficiency, the plan should include strategies for developing landscape characteristics that mitigate the impacts of extreme weather and wildfires on forest habitat quality AND improve timber production, while increasing biodiversity, enhancing water retention, and sequestering carbon. This can be accomplished by:
* Retaining ALL trees greater than 80 years old. These legacy and heritage trees provide habitat for numerous species in addition to shade, water, and nutrients. Consequently, older trees increase forest productivity and are critical to withstanding the greater frequency, duration, and intensity of climate extremes. * Restricting thinning and harvesting to younger forest stands and trees less than 80 years old. As a result, most of the MacDonald-Dunn Forest (2/3) would still be subject to active timber management and generate revenue. * Using protective buffers, irregular edges, and structural complexity in timber harvests to create microclimates, microhabitats, and an evolving mosaic of environmental conditions.
We do not have to sacrifice the health of our forests to obtain wood products and reap profits. So, before finalizing the MacDonald-Dunn Forest Management Plan, please incorporate ecological principles and holistic strategies to increase the resilience of forests, and ultimately our economic stability, in a rapidly changing environment. Thank you for your consideration.
Cody Pollock
07/18/2025
My name is Cody, I’m 18 years old, and this fall I will be attending Oregon State University as a freshman. I’ve always thought that universities like OSU are at their core supposed to be representative of the future. OSU’s purpose is to educate the next generation of engineers, doctors, and scientists; of thinkers and advocates; of people who will try to progress society and altogether make the world a better place. This is why I now feel completely betrayed by this university.
OSU has shown throughout the past couple of years an entirely callous and ignorant disregard of the environmentally correct and moral way to manage our public forests. At a time like this, when looming climate change and environmental destruction represents one of the greatest collective threats in recent human history, cutting older forests is the physical equivalent of spitting in the face of human progress and hope itself. With each subsequent stand of older trees that may be felled after the implementation of this management plan, with each grove that is uprooted from the ground, you will be dooming my generation’s future with backward thinking and antiquated ideas. What we need right now, more than ever, is the preservation of our ancient forests in their unaltered and entirely unpillaged state. It’s time you realized that trees are worth far more standing than cut, because if you don’t, then your children and your grandchildren certainly will.
Brian Larson
07/18/2025
I am writing today as a concerned resident of Corvallis in response to the OSU proposed forest management plan. The proposed plan is problematic on many levels and if implemented would have disastrous environmental consequences that compromise the health and safety of the forest and community.
I am particularly opposed to expanding the practice of clear cutting to 40-80 acre parcels. This will have catastrophic impacts to wildlife, recreation, watersheds and ecosystem diversity. As a research institution and facility of higher learning it is a shameful step backward to take!
Another area of concern is the expansion of logging into old growth areas of the forest. These areas are critical to biodiversity and once they are gone, they do not come back! Please protect the very little old growth that remains in the forest.
When is OSU going to change course from short term profit, to recognizing the more important long term value that a healthy forest brings to this community? Why is OSU not focused on becoming a leader in selective, sustainable forest management? Why has OSU failed to value and protect this vital resource that has so much to offer future generations?
This plan is a disgrace. Please do not implement this plan and reconsider protecting and being stewards of the land that you are responsible for managing. Or does OSU only care about making money by exploiting the land until it no longer has anything left to offer this community and the plants and animals that also live here?
Doug Pollock
07/18/2025
I wrote the attached essay (Seeds of Change in the College of Forestry) six years ago, in the wake of OSU's old-growth cutting debacle. It is in your interest to not only read it, but open your minds to the history and lessons I've presented. As custodians of public trust (and distrust), your choices will have a profound impact on whether the long history of self-serving behavior and industry collusion continues, or whether seeds of change are finally allowed to grow.
As you read it, I would encourage you to ask yourselves the following questions:
What has changed in the past six years and what has remained the same (or gotten worse)? (Hint: public trust in OSU has definitely not stayed the same...) Which of the ten steps I've laid out at the end have been taken and which ones remain "opportunities for positive change"? What are the systemic forces that prevent positive change from occurring within the College of Forestry and the OSU administration? What role do you individually and collectively play in perpetuating the problems I've outlined? What role could you individually or collectively play in solving these problems to better serve the public interest (and allow future generations to not only survive, but thrive)? If you all are unwilling or unable to solve these problems, which higher power(s) might intercede and force change upon you? How do your actions build or undermine public trust in the university?
OSU doesn’t own the forest. It also seems to ignore all the public desire to maintain these forests as they are rather than serving the interests of a few. It is time for the university to consider the views of the people who live in the region and work, fund, and attend the university, rather than the interests of a few corporations whose only concern is profit.
Clear cutting kills more than trees. It destroys the ecology. It destroys shrubs, young trees, and other native plants. The herbicides kill everything that isn't part of the monoculture "replanting" which is essentially a crop that suits one profit seeking goal, and destroys all else. Many sites end up completely sterile, without wildflowers, ground covers, oaks, or other plants. A natural forest contains hundreds of plant species besides conifers. The exposed soils on the now denuded hillside are often prone to erosion during heavy winter rains or spring snowmelt. Topsoil can wash off the clearcut into downslope streams and rivers. Skid trails also form gullies that funnel water and eroded sediment into streams. Large trees, snags, and downed logs that normally create refugia habitat when they fall into streams are no longer present. The originally diverse forest is converted into a uniform tree plantation- a far less productive environment for the native plants and animals that are part of the forest ecosystem. These monoculture tree plantations have low genetic diversity, making them less adaptable to droughts, climate change, and disease; while also creating more hazardous fire conditions.
It is estimated that clear cutting kills millions of animals annually. Wild animals, insects and plants are killed by large clear cuts. After the trees are gone, groundcover plants wither in the sun and parched soils. Most die. Soil animals, bacteria and fungi, vital to tree growth and health, overheat, shrivel and die.
More mobile mammals, reptiles and amphibians become refugees. They flee their former habitats, dodging predators like red-tailed hawks and crows as they search for new shelter and food in other forests. If they find new habitats, they discover others of their kind (red squirrels, for example) have already established territories there. There are no vacant lots in nature. Newcomers are treated as invaders. Territorial battles begin. Imagine somebody arriving to commandeer your home. Displaced individuals are most frequently driven off by residents. The banished, starving and lacking shelter, quietly die or succumb to predators.
Birds like ovenbirds nest on the ground in the middle of large forested areas. Finding the woodland gone, they may opt to nest in smaller woodlands bordered by clear cuts. Raccoons, crows, skunks, blue jays and other predators that hunt forest edges find and devour the eggs or young. It’s called the “edge effect.”
In spring and early summer, many birds nest in trees. Healthy forests include tall, older trees. Some bird species spend most of their feeding time in upper tree canopies. Others habitually feed in a middle canopy zone; still others in the lower. Finding their familiar forest cut and gone, they search for new habitats. Territorial battles erupt that they usually lose. Stress and a lack of food and shelter will eventually lead to death.
Migratory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Act. However, people continue to ruthlessly mow down forests and nests throughout the breeding season.
A surprising number of wildlife species use holes in trees for shelter and rearing their young. Four species of ducks, snakes, mice, several owls, nuthatches, chickadees, tree swallows, flying squirrels, bats, kestrels, wild bees, seven woodpecker species and many other animals and birds depend on such tree cavities. Current forest management regimes leave a few, largely useless, clumps of trees in clear cuts. Suddenly exposed to wind, these frequently blow down after the harvest. Forests are currently being clearcut every 30-55 years, long before trees have grown old and developed holes for wildlife use.
Size matters! No wonder there are growing lists of forest species at risk in the region, from lichens to warblers to Nova Scotia’s mainland moose.
Many salamanders, toads and frog species mate in woodland pools, where fish are absent so eggs and tadpoles have a better chance of survival. A forest canopy moderates temperatures. Clearcutting dries up these ponds prematurely. Raccoons and others gather to feed as tadpoles become vulnerable. Puddles in machinery ruts become new breeding sites for amphibians and fatal traps when they, too, evaporate.
Large clearcuts create drastic ground level climate changes that few forest-dwelling wildlife species can tolerate. Shady, moist, comparatively cool environments under forests are suddenly open to direct sunlight, higher air temperatures and the drying effects of winds.
Rainfall is absorbed by leaves, needles, tree roots and damp soils. After clearcutting, heavy rains hit dry, hard ground that has often been compacted by heavy machinery. Runoff rushes over bare ground. Organics and nutrients leach from the upper soil layers and wash away. Instead of slow forest absorption then gradual release of water, clear cuts flush like toilets into brooks, streams and rivers, creating increased erosion. Stream banks, torn asunder by floods, topple trees that shaded the waterway. Soil carbon begins to migrate into the atmosphere.
Silt clogs spawning beds in stream channels, causing fish eggs to suffocate and die. After heavy rains repeatedly rip their way downstream, stream channels are left wide and shallow. Summer water levels become very low. Increased amounts of sunlight overheat the water, increasing evaporation and causing cold water species like salmon and trout to suffocate for lack of oxygen in the water. (For more information on how streams and rivers fall apart with poor land use, see Saltscapes Volume 1, No. 3, 2000, entitled “Cry Me a River”.)
And then there’s winter, when wildlife needs shelter. A forest technician called me several years ago after he located a young black bear that was hibernating in a depression—out in the open elements of a clearcut.
Overwintering white-tailed deer congregate in valleys and south-facing slopes less prone to prevailing winds. They need reasonably dense softwood cover for shelter, and adjacent areas with hardwoods and softwoods for food. Years ago, cutting winter hardwoods in a mixed wood stand for firewood at the farmhouse was a help to deer, as branches on the ground became browse.
Wildlife species that share these forests with humans deserve more consideration.
None of this benefits the forest. It does not benefit our community. It does not benefit the university. It is short sighted and greedy, lining the pockets of the few for short term gain.
Sneaking this plan through without time for public comment, and ignoring the statements by the public in the past is unconsionable. The university has time and again shown that it aligns itself with special interests rather than with life. It is time for this to stop.
This plan is bad for Oregon. It is bad for forests. It is bad for the university. Do not adopt this plan.
Forest Management Plan Draft Comments
"Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft of the plan. Please consider the following recommendations as constructive suggestions intended to support the continued refinement of the document. As a new faculty member, I acknowledge that some of these points may already have been addressed, but I hope they prove helpful. My comments are informed by my background in the field, particularly in optimization, which frames my perspective.
• Inclusion of Water as a Forest Value: It is not clear how water is accounted as a critical forest value. It was not explicitly included in the metrics developed to evaluate trade-offs across land allocation scenarios (Table 4). Clarifying this or incorporating water-related impacts and tradeoffs may strengthen the plan.
• Job Type Differentiation: In the job-related metrics, it would be beneficial to distinguish between permanent and temporary jobs, as each has distinct social implications and contributes differently to community.
• Monitoring and Sustainability Index: I recommend considering the development of a sustainability index for the entire McDonald-Dunn forest as part of the monitoring framework. This index could synthesize various desired impacts into a scorecard format, allowing for both disaggregated and aggregate analysis. Such a tool may also enhance communication with the public by presenting progress in a clear and accessible manner. Like the health of the patient, being the patient the landscape and forest. I can help with that if required.
• Woodstock Model: Would it be possible to review the Remsoft Woodstock model used in the analysis, particularly how the constraints were handled? This would allow for more detailed feedback and potentially support further refinement of the model's structure and assumptions."
Expanding the practice of clear cutting to 40 to 80 acres will have catastrophic impacts to wildlife, recreation, watersheds and ecosystem diversity. As a research institution and facility of higher learning, you should know better!
Another area of concern is the expansion of logging into old growth areas of the forest. These areas are critical to biodiversity and once they are gone, they do not come back! Please protect the very little old growth that remains in the forest.
When is OSU going to change course from short term profit, to recognizing the more important long term value that a healthy forest brings to this community? Why is OSU not focused on becoming a leader in selective, sustainable forest management? Why has OSU failed to value and protect this vital resource that has so much to offer future generations?
This matter hits deep within our immediate family. My family survived the devastating Paradise wildfire in 2018, due to climate change, and the negative changes to our forests. I do not want others to go through what our family had to go through. We need to HEAL our forests!! We need to COLLABORATE and PROTECT our forests for future generations before it is too late.
This plan is a disgrace. Please do not implement this plan and reconsider protecting and being stewards of the land that you are responsible for managing. Greediness is the main reason why humans, the earth, and all the living things are profoundly suffering. Please care about our community, the plants, and the animals that live here. Let's create, not destroy!
Be the leaders in sustainable forest management!!
When you know better, do better!
Attn: Oregon State University College of Forestry
140 Peavy Forest Science Center
3100 SW Jefferson Way
Corvallis, OR 97331
RE: Draft 2025 MacDonald-Dunn Forest Plan
Dear Oregon State University College of Forestry,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft 2025 MacDonald-Dunn Forest Plan (draft plan). The Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC) is a statewide trade association representing large private forest landowners and wood products manufacturers in Oregon. OFIC’s core mission is to advocate on behalf of its members to maintain a positive, stable business operating environment for Oregon's forest products community that fosters long-term investments in healthy forests; to ensure a reliable timber supply from Oregon's public and private forestlands; and to promote stewardship and sustainable management of forestlands that protect environmental values and maintain productive uses on all forestlands. OFIC members’ businesses employ tens of thousands of Oregonians in Oregon’s forest sector, including many professional foresters, engineers and managers who are alumni of the College of Forestry (COF) at Oregon State University (OSU). Central to the mission of land grant universities are the ideals of education, scientific research and outreach, to promote economic development through practical application of knowledge. The OSU COF website lists its mission as an effort to “explore, evaluate, communicate and catalyze new possibilities in forestry and advance sustainable solutions to challenges facing society.” As a research forest owned and operated by the OSU COF, the MacDonald-Dunn Forest (Mac-Dunn) is a direct reflection of those combined missions. The forest was donated with the intention of being actively managed to provide a living laboratory to students and faculty to explore, experiment, study, learn and demonstrate the values, ideals and possibilities surrounding forestry. The COF has a key role in educating tomorrow’s professional forestry workforce, generating world class research that supports sustainable management of public and private lands and demonstrating to the lay public what sustainable, actively managed forests look like. With this in mind, and in the spirit of constructive feedback intended to improve the plan to better achieve these objectives and aspirations for the Mac- Dunn Forest, OFIC offers the following important critiques.
1. The draft plan must keep management as a goal of every acre of the Mac-Dunn, with a particular focus on harvest and reforestation. Manipulating forest composition and structure is achieved primarily through harvest and reforestation - which are the basic tools of silviculture. The goal of the forest should always be to use active management to achieve desirable outcomes. We are concerned that this plan more than doubles the number of acres that will be designated on a trajectory towards late-successional forest. There are ample living laboratories of late successional forests in Oregon already: the Elliot State Research Forest, the H.J. Andrews, and the hundreds of thousands of acres set aside by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, to name a few. It’s implied within the draft plan that many of the acres that will be slated for this designation on the Mac-Dunn are currently of a younger age class and would benefit from activities to accelerate their trajectory towards a late- successional forest type. Furthermore, within the description of the Late-successional Forest Management Strategy, on page 63, the plan implies that areas where older forest already exists, no harvest will occur unless they are individual trees that must be removed for safety concerns. OFIC urges the COF to reconsider the plan to designate more acres going into this category, only to stagnate in perpetuity. Rather, the COF should use the abundant forests already available - as listed above - to conduct research on old forest reserves. On the acres already existing on the Mac Dunn in a late-successional state, it is our strongly held belief that the COF should utilize these areas to promote active management practices and challenge the dangerous and pervasive no-management paradigm that has led to catastrophic wildfires and insect infestations across thousands of acres of late successional reserves and wilderness areas on public lands throughout the western United States. Research has shown that harvest is an effective tool for increasing forest resiliency and preventing low-intensity fires from becoming stand-replacing events. If the COF desires to study and manage late successional forests, this should be done in combination with a research strategy that explores how to actively manage such forests to promote forest health and resiliency as well as economic opportunity. No trees in the Mac-Dunn should be precluded from harvest. Rather, the plan should give professional foresters the latitude to treat stands in accordance with sound forestry principles to promote the goals outlined above. Doing this will ensure that the COF stays on mission as a land-grant university.
2. Share more details on what went into the modeling, consider using a higher discount rate and explain the assumptions and constraints that were embedded in the modeling. In reviewing the modeling information that was provided, we found it odd that in some of the scenarios, despite more acres allocated for early harvest (“short rotations”), which would also presumably be acres that would require early harvest of older forests, the model was predicting a lower overall net revenue. Given that all discounted cash flow models prefer early returns on investments, this seems flawed. Subsequent conversations uncovered two potential reasons for this unexpected conclusion in the modeling: first, the use of a lower than industry standard discount rate (four percent), and second, a constraint on the model forcing it to harvest at an arbitrary average age that may be lower than optimal for the site classes associated with much of the Mac-Dunn Forest. The use of a four percent discount rate is inappropriate for the Mac Dunn. That discount rate is on the low end of what is used in state and federal discounted cash flow models. An industry standard of six to eight percent may be more appropriate. It was presented that four percent was used because that is the rate of return that the college could achieve with the best alternative investment. However, this is only half of the equation when picking an appropriate discount rate. We recommend that the college follow the standard practice of using the discount rate to account for other risks such as wildfire, insect outbreaks, disease or pathogens, market risks such as mill closures and log price fluctuation, regulatory risks, and social risks, all of which could lead the college to higher constraints and lower revenue production. When all these risks are considered, a strong case is made for a higher discount rate than the four percent that was used. Furthermore, it would behoove the COF to remove the distinction of “short rotation” altogether and instead let the model find the optimal harvest volume at the age it chooses, while using an appropriate discount rate and other relevant constraints. This is, in fact, how most of the industry does similar modeling - we are unaware of any landowner that artificially constrains their modeling efforts to harvest at certain average ages. Given the site classes associated with the Mac-Dunn, it is possible that a rotation closer to 50 to 60 years may be optimal. OFIC recommends re-modeling with a higher discount rate - closer to industry standard - without an artificial constraint for a particular age, thus allowing the model to find the optimal harvest rotation for the forest. This could be re-imagined as a “sustainable harvest strategy” and replace both the “short” and “long” rotation strategies currently listed. It would likely result in higher volume and revenue outputs, and more closely align with private land management, which would allow better opportunities for studies more relevant to the forest sector in Oregon.
3. Add language that clearly articulates the parameters around what constitutes an “appropriate” time or circumstance for pursuit of an alternative revenue stream for the Mac-Dunn. On page 58 of the draft plan, it states that “adaptive funding strategies will be pursued when appropriate.” Alternative revenue streams should be pursued only when they fit the mission, vision and purpose of the OSU COF as a land grant university, and the Mac- Dunn as an “actively and sustainably managed forest.” It would be inappropriate to adopt an alternative funding source that would constrain the COF’s ability to harvest or otherwise alter standard and accepted sustainable forestry practices. To do so would be off-mission and harm or completely dismantle the university’s ability to deliver on their land grant purpose to the sector and to the citizens of Oregon. This would be a devastating outcome, one that should be avoided by providing clearly articulated expectations for these potential alternative revenue streams up front in the plan itself.
4. Provide additional inventory data and projections. The draft plan is missing key data that is standard in many management plans. The plan is missing an estimate of current or projected timber volume by species, estimated volumes by land management objective over time, estimated growth across the forest, etc. We would like to see the planning horizon and planning periods presented in the model. These planning horizons should be at least two full rotations in length in order to capture how the proposed silvicultural prescriptions will change the forest over time as each stand is transitioned from current condition to the regenerated condition under a 2 LP harvest scheduling model. We would also like to see more detailed information regarding the standing live tree inventory, standing dead and periodic growth across the forest. Currently the draft plan provides sparse details, primarily on page 47, showing only the current average age classes and a three paragraph, broad description of site class, species composition and tree heights.
5. Provide additional information regarding targets and baselines for measuring the relative success of the draft plan. There was no baseline or minimum amount of revenue identified as necessary to pay for staff, maintenance, etc. Without this clear benchmark the forest is at risk of running a deficit. Furthermore, there is no clearly defined revenue goal. Without these factors, it is difficult to understand the benchmarks for success of this plan from a revenue perspective.
6. Certain statements in the draft plan should be removed or re-written. We request that the COF review the plan for language that should be written more clearly or more appropriately. Below are a couple of examples:
a. On page 58 the draft plan states that “the funding model for the research forests was created at a time when research forests nationwide functioned like industrial plantations.” This statement is incredibly broad and presumptuous and is not supported by tangible evidence. There are no references in this document to the history of other research forests across the nation, nor is there an explanation as to what is meant by the phrase “industrial plantations.” Surely it is not the conclusion of the COF that forests across all private land ownerships nationwide were historically managed in a homogeneous manner. This is a paragraph that should be re-written with clear language that removes bias and overly broad or false statements.
b. The use of the term “short rotation” throughout the document should be reconsidered. What is short? This is a term that betrays a universally-agreed-upon definition. Section 2 of these comments offers a helpful alternative to such a subjective, value-laden language.
OFIC values the symbiotic, collaborative relationship that has existed between Oregon’s forest sector and the COF at OSU. The land grant mission of the university is the foundation of that relationship, and as such, should always be reflected in the purpose and goals expressed in the management plan for the Mac Dunn Forest. OFIC appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments on behalf of our members for ways that this plan can be improved to better reflect and deliver on this broad mission and looks forward to continuing its long and fruitful relationship with the OSU COF.
Sincerely,
Seth A Barnes>br> OFIC Director of Forest Policy
OSU Alumni, FM, Class of 2002
Oregon State University Board of Trustees
652 Kerr Administration Building
Corvallis, OR 97331
Submitted via email
Subject: OSU’s Draft Management Plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest
Dear OSU Trustees,
On behalf of the 58,000 statewide members and supporters of the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club, we
urge you to advocate for better stewardship of the public forests under OSU’s management. As the
highest oversight body of our public university, you are the ultimate stewards of these amazing natural
resources that belong to all Oregonians.
The Oregon Chapter has long encouraged OSU to prioritize ecological considerations and public values
over OSU’s traditional management and monetization of the research forests. The Sierra Club’s core
values reflect both the best available science and the public interest, which align with protecting older
forests. These same values ought to coincide with OSU’s educational and research missions.
Unfortunately, the draft management plan for the McDonald-Dunn Forest falls short in a number of
alarming ways. The substantial amount of clearcutting and lack of meaningful protections for older forests
are both contrary to scientific leadership and the public interest. The continued focus on industrial
forestry, with its adverse impacts like herbicide use and slash-burning, contrasts sharply with the lack of
consideration of ecological forest management. The deliberate removal of specific protections for older
forests (like the 160- year cutting limit) and expansive allowance for discretionary cutting (under the guise
of restoration, fuels reduction, and public safety) are deeply concerning. The reliance on the low bar of the
Oregon Forest Practices Act and the absence of enforceable constraints is equally alarming. The plan is
full of “guidelines” and “recommendations”, but lacks meaningful and firm commitments.
We are also deeply concerned by the echoing of timber-industry propaganda and the lack of substantive
measures to mitigate climate change. Numerous studies, including those of renowned OSU scientists,
have concluded that the forest sector contributes ~1/3 of our state's total GHG emissions.1 The language
of the draft plan seems designed to downplay the pivotal role of forest carbon sequestration in addressing
the climate crisis. This is especially disappointing, as OSU’s own scientists have been leaders in the field of
forest carbon and climate research for decades. The plan’s forest carbon metric ignores below-ground
carbon losses, skewing the results in favor of clearcutting, which dramatically reduces carbon stored in
the soil. These are just a few examples of the systemic bias that can be found throughout the draft plan.
The College of Forestry’s technical competency is also undermined by the draft plan’s reliance on
Woodstock software, a traditional linear modeling tool which is heavily biased in favor of traditional
timber management. The resulting metrics are largely meaningless. The same goes for the surveys of
forest users, which falsely concluded there are relatively minor differences in public perception of
clearcuts vs. older forests. Independent surveys have repeatedly found that a large percentage of
Oregonians are opposed to clearcutting and favor increased protections for older forests.2 Despite facing
overwhelming criticism for these types of shortcomings, OSU has failed to address them in the draft plan.
The continual reluctance of the planning team to improve their approach undermines confidence in the
draft plan and the College of Forestry’s integrity and competence.
We have previously shared our deep concerns about the biases in the process used to develop this forest
plan.3 It does not come as a surprise that the resulting plan is heavily skewed toward industrial forestry at
the expense of ecological considerations. What is perhaps most disappointing is that the OSU
administration has failed to take effective corrective actions along the way. State law calls on the trustees
of our public universities to provide transparency and public accountability. OSU’s draft plan for the
McDonald-Dunn and the flawed process that produced it show that public accountability is largely absent.
We call on you to intervene and reset the forest planning process. It is time for OSU to demonstrate better
stewardship of this public forest.
Respectfully,
Damon Motz-Storey
Oregon Chapter Director, Sierra Club
1821 SE Ankeny St, Portland, OR 97214
* Retaining ALL trees greater than 80 years old. These legacy and heritage trees provide habitat for numerous species in addition to shade, water, and nutrients. Consequently, older trees increase forest productivity and are critical to withstanding the greater frequency, duration, and intensity of climate extremes.
* Restricting thinning and harvesting to younger forest stands and trees less than 80 years old. As a result, most of the MacDonald-Dunn Forest (2/3) would still be subject to active timber management and generate revenue.
* Using protective buffers, irregular edges, and structural complexity in timber harvests to create microclimates, microhabitats, and an evolving mosaic of environmental conditions.
We do not have to sacrifice the health of our forests to obtain wood products and reap profits. So, before finalizing the MacDonald-Dunn Forest Management Plan, please incorporate ecological principles and holistic strategies to increase the resilience of forests, and ultimately our economic stability, in a rapidly changing environment. Thank you for your consideration.
OSU has shown throughout the past couple of years an entirely callous and ignorant disregard of the environmentally correct and moral way to manage our public forests. At a time like this, when looming climate change and environmental destruction represents one of the greatest collective threats in recent human history, cutting older forests is the physical equivalent of spitting in the face of human progress and hope itself. With each subsequent stand of older trees that may be felled after the implementation of this management plan, with each grove that is uprooted from the ground, you will be dooming my generation’s future with backward thinking and antiquated ideas. What we need right now, more than ever, is the preservation of our ancient forests in their unaltered and entirely unpillaged state. It’s time you realized that trees are worth far more standing than cut, because if you don’t, then your children and your grandchildren certainly will.
I am particularly opposed to expanding the practice of clear cutting to 40-80 acre parcels. This will have catastrophic impacts to wildlife, recreation, watersheds and ecosystem diversity. As a research institution and facility of higher learning it is a shameful step backward to take!
Another area of concern is the expansion of logging into old growth areas of the forest. These areas are critical to biodiversity and once they are gone, they do not come back! Please protect the very little old growth that remains in the forest.
When is OSU going to change course from short term profit, to recognizing the more important long term value that a healthy forest brings to this community? Why is OSU not focused on becoming a leader in selective, sustainable forest management? Why has OSU failed to value and protect this vital resource that has so much to offer future generations?
This plan is a disgrace. Please do not implement this plan and reconsider protecting and being stewards of the land that you are responsible for managing. Or does OSU only care about making money by exploiting the land until it no longer has anything left to offer this community and the plants and animals that also live here?
I wrote the attached essay (Seeds of Change in the College of Forestry) six years ago, in the wake of OSU's old-growth cutting debacle. It is in your interest to not only read it, but open your minds to the history and lessons I've presented. As custodians of public trust (and distrust), your choices will have a profound impact on whether the long history of self-serving behavior and industry collusion continues, or whether seeds of change are finally allowed to grow.
As you read it, I would encourage you to ask yourselves the following questions:
What has changed in the past six years and what has remained the same (or gotten worse)? (Hint: public trust in OSU has definitely not stayed the same...)
Which of the ten steps I've laid out at the end have been taken and which ones remain "opportunities for positive change"?
What are the systemic forces that prevent positive change from occurring within the College of Forestry and the OSU administration?
What role do you individually and collectively play in perpetuating the problems I've outlined?
What role could you individually or collectively play in solving these problems to better serve the public interest (and allow future generations to not only survive, but thrive)?
If you all are unwilling or unable to solve these problems, which higher power(s) might intercede and force change upon you?
How do your actions build or undermine public trust in the university?
OSU doesn’t own the forest. It also seems to ignore all the public desire to maintain these forests as they are rather than serving the interests of a few. It is time for the university to consider the views of the people who live in the region and work, fund, and attend the university, rather than the interests of a few corporations whose only concern is profit.
Clear cutting kills more than trees. It destroys the ecology. It destroys shrubs, young trees, and other native plants. The herbicides kill everything that isn't part of the monoculture "replanting" which is essentially a crop that suits one profit seeking goal, and destroys all else. Many sites end up completely sterile, without wildflowers, ground covers, oaks, or other plants. A natural forest contains hundreds of plant species besides conifers. The exposed soils on the now denuded hillside are often prone to erosion during heavy winter rains or spring snowmelt. Topsoil can wash off the clearcut into downslope streams and rivers. Skid trails also form gullies that funnel water and eroded sediment into streams. Large trees, snags, and downed logs that normally create refugia habitat when they fall into streams are no longer present. The originally diverse forest is converted into a uniform tree plantation- a far less productive environment for the native plants and animals that are part of the forest ecosystem. These monoculture tree plantations have low genetic diversity, making them less adaptable to droughts, climate change, and disease; while also creating more hazardous fire conditions.
It is estimated that clear cutting kills millions of animals annually. Wild animals, insects and plants are killed by large clear cuts. After the trees are gone, groundcover plants wither in the sun and parched soils. Most die. Soil animals, bacteria and fungi, vital to tree growth and health, overheat, shrivel and die.
More mobile mammals, reptiles and amphibians become refugees. They flee their former habitats, dodging predators like red-tailed hawks and crows as they search for new shelter and food in other forests. If they find new habitats, they discover others of their kind (red squirrels, for example) have already established territories there. There are no vacant lots in nature. Newcomers are treated as invaders. Territorial battles begin. Imagine somebody arriving to commandeer your home. Displaced individuals are most frequently driven off by residents. The banished, starving and lacking shelter, quietly die or succumb to predators.
Birds like ovenbirds nest on the ground in the middle of large forested areas. Finding the woodland gone, they may opt to nest in smaller woodlands bordered by clear cuts. Raccoons, crows, skunks, blue jays and other predators that hunt forest edges find and devour the eggs or young. It’s called the “edge effect.”
In spring and early summer, many birds nest in trees. Healthy forests include tall, older trees. Some bird species spend most of their feeding time in upper tree canopies. Others habitually feed in a middle canopy zone; still others in the lower. Finding their familiar forest cut and gone, they search for new habitats. Territorial battles erupt that they usually lose. Stress and a lack of food and shelter will eventually lead to death.
Migratory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Act. However, people continue to ruthlessly mow down forests and nests throughout the breeding season.
A surprising number of wildlife species use holes in trees for shelter and rearing their young. Four species of ducks, snakes, mice, several owls, nuthatches, chickadees, tree swallows, flying squirrels, bats, kestrels, wild bees, seven woodpecker species and many other animals and birds depend on such tree cavities. Current forest management regimes leave a few, largely useless, clumps of trees in clear cuts. Suddenly exposed to wind, these frequently blow down after the harvest. Forests are currently being clearcut every 30-55 years, long before trees have grown old and developed holes for wildlife use.
Size matters! No wonder there are growing lists of forest species at risk in the region, from lichens to warblers to Nova Scotia’s mainland moose.
Many salamanders, toads and frog species mate in woodland pools, where fish are absent so eggs and tadpoles have a better chance of survival. A forest canopy moderates temperatures. Clearcutting dries up these ponds prematurely. Raccoons and others gather to feed as tadpoles become vulnerable. Puddles in machinery ruts become new breeding sites for amphibians and fatal traps when they, too, evaporate.
Large clearcuts create drastic ground level climate changes that few forest-dwelling wildlife species can tolerate. Shady, moist, comparatively cool environments under forests are suddenly open to direct sunlight, higher air temperatures and the drying effects of winds.
Rainfall is absorbed by leaves, needles, tree roots and damp soils. After clearcutting, heavy rains hit dry, hard ground that has often been compacted by heavy machinery. Runoff rushes over bare ground. Organics and nutrients leach from the upper soil layers and wash away. Instead of slow forest absorption then gradual release of water, clear cuts flush like toilets into brooks, streams and rivers, creating increased erosion. Stream banks, torn asunder by floods, topple trees that shaded the waterway. Soil carbon begins to migrate into the atmosphere.
Silt clogs spawning beds in stream channels, causing fish eggs to suffocate and die. After heavy rains repeatedly rip their way downstream, stream channels are left wide and shallow. Summer water levels become very low. Increased amounts of sunlight overheat the water, increasing evaporation and causing cold water species like salmon and trout to suffocate for lack of oxygen in the water. (For more information on how streams and rivers fall apart with poor land use, see Saltscapes Volume 1, No. 3, 2000, entitled “Cry Me a River”.)
And then there’s winter, when wildlife needs shelter. A forest technician called me several years ago after he located a young black bear that was hibernating in a depression—out in the open elements of a clearcut.
Overwintering white-tailed deer congregate in valleys and south-facing slopes less prone to prevailing winds. They need reasonably dense softwood cover for shelter, and adjacent areas with hardwoods and softwoods for food. Years ago, cutting winter hardwoods in a mixed wood stand for firewood at the farmhouse was a help to deer, as branches on the ground became browse.
Wildlife species that share these forests with humans deserve more consideration.
None of this benefits the forest. It does not benefit our community. It does not benefit the university. It is short sighted and greedy, lining the pockets of the few for short term gain.
Sneaking this plan through without time for public comment, and ignoring the statements by the public in the past is unconsionable. The university has time and again shown that it aligns itself with special interests rather than with life. It is time for this to stop.
This plan is bad for Oregon. It is bad for forests. It is bad for the university. Do not adopt this plan.