Name Date Comment
Anonymous 10/30/2022
While I am genuinely pleased to see so many comments from OSU College of Forestry alumni, I am disappointed that none of them -- not one -- advocates for anything other than continuing the same harvests and intensive management practices. Currently, 97% of the Mac-Dunn is under some form of "active forest management". Three percent remains in mature/old growth reserves. THREE PERCENT. Given the myriad known benefits and ecosystem services uncut forest provides, that is an absurd imbalance.
It does not speak well of OSU that graduates of its world-class College of Forestry don't seem to find any other values in a forest besides MBF. I would have expected somebody to advocate for other aspects of being a forester besides resource extraction. The school has failed if none of its graduates see the need for a broader concept of management, one that includes larger forest reserves within the McDonald-Dunn.
Anonymous 02/10/2023

As someone who utilized the trails 6 days a week, it would be amazing to see more technical trails put in for the community to use. We have a great trail network already and it would be great to continue to build upon it.

Anonymous 10/22/2024

Re: recreational matters, no e-bikes and no dogs should be allowed in the Mac-Dunn Research Forests.

Anonymous 01/05/2023

Access to this forest has been and remains very valuable to my physical and mental health. I hope that the stewards of this forest will expand recreational use to include sanctioning more difficult trails for both mountain bikes and trail runners while maintaining trail options for hikers. The value of sanctioning more difficult trails is added trail builder engagement, user enjoyment, and trail maintenance. Although the forest was originally designated for research purposes I believe public lands should be accessible to citizens as well as academics. With cooperative recreation development the research needs can be met while providing expanded access to city residents.

Anonymous 06/04/2024

As a Benton County resident, I am stunned - quite frankly - at OSU's recent history of McDonald Dunn forest management practices, i.e., clear cut logging of old-growth and mature trees in the name of financial profit. During a time of incredibly destructive climate change, every single person and entity must do everything possible to mitigate damage already done, and take every measure to protect our fragile future. Every single person relies on more than 20,000 breaths of air; approximately 8 glasses of clean drinkable water; and 3 plates of healthy food every single day - all of which are made possible by healthy diverse forests. We all benefit greatly from free-of-charge ecosystem services provided by healthy diverse forests. Our very existence is also compromised by prioritizing financial profit over forest health and integrity. OSU's management plan must place a high priority on supporting any and all strategic actions leading to a diverse forest representative of Pacific NW native tree and plant species. Management priorities must also include careful management of fragile stream embankments to prevent erosion and the spread of noxious weeds and non-native species. OSU's management plan must also create habitat conditions that provide for a diverse population of native insect, bird, amphibian, mammal and other wildlife species once found in the McDonald Dunn Forest. We - as a community - owe it to ourselves and our forest inhabitants the chance to calm climate change and support a healthy way of life by protecting lands, waters and wildlife. I'm asking OSU to create and strategically manage the McDonald Dunn Forest for conservation purposes only.

Anonymous 10/25/2022

I have lived out in Soap Creek Valley for almost 35 years. There is a lot more traffic and people visiting OSU at all entrances into the forest in the past five. Since OSU is encouraging people to recreate at these different areas I would hope they would provide more doggie bags for all the dog walkers. I feel there should be a dispenser at every gate and trailhead.

Anonymous 02/10/2023

More trails in the Dunn forest please!

Anonymous 10/18/2024

I live on Oak Creek Drive not far from the gate. Currently, the traffic is along the lines of that expected of a 30- dwelling housing development on a daily basis, more on nice weekends.
There are no shoulders on much of the road beyond the junction with Cardwell Hill. The sight lines are poor, especially near our driveway. We understand that recreation is an important use, but we also find it is nearly impossible to safely walk or bicycle on our road on weekends and late afternoons when traffic is heavy. *This is our neighborhood.* Although most forest users are considerate, even 20 mph feels very fast if a car passes you so closely you could reach out and touch it. That's not uncommon because the road is so narrow and there is no way to step off the pavement in many areas. We urge the college to carefully consider how more access can be created across a variety of trailheads to prevent any one neighborhood from having to bear the brunt of the negative effects of the increased traffic, which is a major safety issue as well as a significant livability issue (the traffic noise can be considerable, we never encounter our neighbors anymore, and I've peeled dozens of dead wild animals off the pavement over the past decade). I'm not interested in becoming literal road kill for other peoples' enjoyment, but I also expect to be able to safely walk my dogs near my home or use my bicycle for transportation to town (which it is, on a daily basis). 

Anonymous 05/20/2024

"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mac-Dunn Forest planning process.
I’ve not attended the meetings to date, but have reviewed the meeting summaries. My comments are:
1. Meeting summary 16 notes that the first chapter was entirely drafted by Oct 31, 2023, but with no mention of what it contains or how it compares to or retains the material presented in the superb Introduction and Description section of the 2005 forest plan. This section is highly educational regarding the history, geology, soils and vegetation of the college forests, and should be retained and/or built upon in the updated forest plan. It was drafted by experts in their fields, most of whom are no longer with OSU.
2. In particular, I recommend that you retain figures 4 – 12 of the 2005 plan, changing the caption of Fig. 5 to “Vegetation in 2005”, and updating Fig. 9 to include the most recent available image of the vegetation and land use. In Fig. 10, it would be desirable to show the most recently available stand age class distribution or include it as an additional panel. This update would be quite useful in deciding how to allocate the forest lands.
3. The plant association map shown in Fig. 12 is highly informative. Of the six associations, that including western hemlock (in the upper Soap Creek drainage) is quite rare – roughly 30 acres, as near as I could tell, barely 0.3% of the Mac – Dunn area. At least part
of this area should be reserved. Doing so would provide an important research opportunity to determine how this plant community on the dry side of its range fares during the coming decades of global climate change.
4. Regarding the reserves and special interest areas shown in Fig. 13 of the 2005 plan, this needs to be revisited, as there are some old growth areas not included in the reserves and a need for other special area reserves, as mentioned above. One solution would be the inclusion of a process for evaluating and including additional reserves or special areas in the current plan.
5. Figure 23 of the 2005 plan shows annual harvest rates up till 2004 and should be updated to include the years up till present, so that one can compare current with past management practices. "

Anonymous 10/24/2022
I have concerns about the effectiveness of the community listening sessions as currently structured. I understand and appreciate the desire to provide multiple venues for participation. But having some folks in a room together, and other people conducting a different session on Zoom, and a third party synthesizing all of the comments and providing them in a list of bullet points to the committee members strikes me as a perfect recipe for poor communication. If the CoF is genuinely interested in hearing feedback from the community, I would recommend:
* requiring all members of BOTH committees to be present (there to listen, not speak)
* choosing a single format (in person OR zoom) and keeping all participants together
Basically, the public should be able to address the people creating the forest plan directly, and this doesn't seem that hard to achieve.
(Also, the recordings of previous zoom meetings have been plagued with technical difficulties, making hearing what is being said and who is speaking nearly impossible to discern. I trust those issues will be fixed for the upcoming Faculty Planning Committee meeting...)
Thank you!
Anonymous 02/10/2023

As a resident close to an entrance gate (Jackson Creek Rd), I am very interested in having plenty of trails. As a runner who often goes to other entrances, I would really like to see more parking, especially for Dunn Forest.

Anonymous 06/04/2024

As a Benton County resident, I am stunned - quite frankly - at OSU's recent history of McDonald Dunn forest management practices, i.e., clear cut logging of old-growth and mature trees in the name of financial profit. During a time of incredibly destructive climate change, every single person and entity must do everything possible to mitigate damage already done, and take every measure to protect our fragile future. Every single person relies on more than 20,000 breaths of air; approximately 8 glasses of clean drinkable water; and 3 plates of healthy food every single day - all of which are made possible by healthy diverse forests. We all benefit greatly from free-of-charge ecosystem services provided by healthy diverse forests. Our very existence is also compromised by prioritizing financial profit over forest health and integrity. OSU's management plan must place a high priority on supporting any and all strategic actions leading to a diverse forest representative of Pacific NW native tree and plant species. Management priorities must also include careful management of fragile stream embankments to prevent erosion and the spread of noxious weeds and non-native species. OSU's management plan must also create habitat conditions that provide for a diverse population of native insect, bird, amphibian, mammal and other wildlife species once found in the McDonald Dunn Forest. We - as a community - owe it to ourselves and our forest inhabitants the chance to calm climate change and support a healthy way of life by protecting lands, waters and wildlife. I'm asking OSU to create and strategically manage the McDonald Dunn Forest for conservation purposes only.

Anonymous 10/22/2022
I am 62 years old, retired early, and diagnosed with Progressive Peripheral Polyneuropathy. What this means is that the nerves in my legs (and arms) are deteriorating
and I will continue to lose muscle strength, which has already started in my lower legs. There is no known treatment for this and it will gradually advance so that eventually, I will no longer have the use of my legs. I wear set of prosthetic orthotic braces that allow me to walk and, importantly, ride a bicycle. My calf muscles are very weak - I can no longer raise my heels to stand on my toes or the balls of my feet. The brace surrounds my foot and makes up for the lack of lower leg strength. Fortunately, I am still able to ride, though with some limitations in both mobility and strength. I still ride ride both road and mountain bikes regularly for exercise and enjoyment; I have ridden both my road and mountain bike in the McDonald Forest since moving here 9 months ago. I am here to advocate for e-bike access to (at least some subset) of trails in the forest. I have recently purchased an e-MTB, which has been a game changer in allowing me to ride longer, farther, and safer (less tired = better control). I have NOT ridden my e-bike in the McDonald forest, respecting the current rule prohibiting their use on forest trails. It is defined as a bicycle equipped with fully operable pedals and equipped with an electric motor of less than 750 Watts. There are three classes of e-bikes, which are important for the present discussion.
Class 1: A bicycle with a motor that assists only when the rider pedals and stops assisting when the bicycle reaches 20 miles per hour.
Class 2: A bicycle with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that stops assisting when the bicycle reaches 20 miles per hour.
Class 3: A bicycle with a motor that assists only when the rider pedals, stops assisting when the bicycle reaches 28 miles per hour and is equipped with a speedometer.
Unfortunately, Oregon has not adopted this three class system. Oregon classifies e-bikes as “electric assisted bicycles,” and they are regulated like bicycles, so long as the bicycle’s motor has a maximum power output of 1,000w, has pedals that propel the bike with human power and the bike doesn’t exceed 20mph. To be clear, what I am advocating for in the McDonald forest is trail access for Class 1 e-bikes only. A Class 1 e-MTB is nearly indistinguishable from a regular mountain bike, and people often have a difficult time distinguishing between "e" and regular mountain bike, especially vwith the advent of the new "lightweight" e-MTBs made by Trek, Specialized, Orbea and other manufacturers. Class 2 and 3 e-bikes should be permitted on forest roads. E-bike sales and usage is growing rapidly. E-bike sales are growing rapidly - as much as 16x regular bikes. 880,000 e-bikes were sold in 2021, and industry experts predict > 1M sold in 2022. People for bikes predicts 12M electric bikes will be sold by 20301. Almost all brands of Mountain Bikes have one or more electric models. The latest trend is in "lightweight" e-MTBs, with less powerful motors, smaller batteries, and weights very close to "standard" mountain bikes.
Potential Concerns about e-bike access in the Mac Forest, addressed
Trail Impacts
A growing body of evidence suggests that mountain biking impacts to trails (soils, water quality, vegetation) are similar to hiking and less than equestrian and motorized use. The biggest impact is due to the design and construction of trails. IMBA and the BLM did a small, quantitative study of trail impacts comparing (Class 1) e-MTBs with regular MTBs and motorcycles2. There was not a significant difference in measured soil erosion and displacement between Class 1 eMTBs and regular MTBs, but much less than that associated with motorcycle use. This lends some credence to the position of many bicycling advocacy groups to recommend that Class 1 e-MTBs be classified at bicycles (rather than motorized vehicles) in terms of land management and usage decisions. Speed and Safety. Reviewing surveys about e-bike trail access indicates that a major concern about e-bikes from other user groups is around speed and safety, with the perception that e-bikes result in higher speeds on the trails. A study in the Tahoe National Forest looked at the speed of e-bike vs MTB users and found that when traveling over flat or downhill surfaces, e-bikes are no faster than traditional mountain bikes. When traveling uphill, e-bikes tended to be 1-2 mph faster than traditional mountain bikes, but that speed variation was smaller than the uphill speed variation between beginner and advanced riders3. This mirrors my personal experience. In riding flat or descending, speed is more a matter of rider skill and trail design than e-bike vs traditional bike. I also find that I am able to ride uphill faster on my e-bike than on my regular mountain bike, but again, I feel that my uphill speed is limited by my skill level.
Conflict - Perception and Reality
Surveys of other trail users indicate that when perceived conflicts are reported, they are related to the feeling that e-bikes travel at higher speeds. Those perceptions tended to change when users saw or used an e-bike, and did not match the observation that traditional mountain bikes travel as fast or faster down trails than e-bikes. Furthermore, most users were unable to distinguish e-MTBs on trails4.
What other groups have said
Oregon State Parks
Electric assisted bicycles that fit the definition under Oregon law (ORS 801.258) may ride on bicycle trails 8 feet and wider unless otherwise marked5.
Federal Lands (BLM, USFS, etc)
In general, Federal lands define electric bikes by the three class system, but have not defined Class I e-bikes as “Non-motorized”, as has been requested by e-bike advocacy organizations. Each agency has methods to designate e-bike access (specifically, Class 1) to non-motorized trails. As of today, Class 1 e-bikes are permitted on some BLM and USFS trails6.
Washington Trails Association
I was unable to find a statement on e-bike access from the Oregon Trails Coalition, but here is a statement from our neighbors to the north:
WTA believes that everyone should be able to enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, and we support opportunities that create increased access. We know that e-bikes can help us achieve this mission by facilitating a more inclusive outdoor experience for people of all abilities. We believe that decisions regarding class 1 e-bike use, which is the class most similar to traditional mountain bikes, should be made on a trail-by-trail basis. We don’t think there should be a blanket policy that covers all non-motorized, multi-use natural surface trails. While one trail may be suitable for a class 1 e-bike, another trail may not. WTA believes that class 2 and 3 e-bikes should not be allowed on non-motorized, natural surface trails.7
Proposal
I propose that OSU allow access to Class 1 e-bikes to any trails currently open to mountain bikes (or, just bikes in general), and to all roads. As an alternative, I would propose that Class 1 e- bikes at least be allowed on those trails that are primary mountain bike trails.
At the very least, I would hope that OSU consider running an e-MTB Pilot project in the forest, designating some number of trails for e-MTB usage and collecting surevy and observational data from all trail users, using methods similar to those described in:
4. These and many other studies covered in "E-Bikes Literature Review", National Park Service, August 2021.
6. The various agency policies are covered here: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/electric-bikes/federalebikepolicies
Anonymous 01/31/2023

Will the new management plan offer more connectivity from the Urban area to Oak Creek or the MLK park or the Dimple Creek area? Not having to ride down Oak Creek would be a Joy. in the early 1990s, this was identified as a top priority for safety and accessibility. 1.6-2.0 Miles to reach Oak creek from MLK and use Skirt the sheep barn property.

Anonymous 10/29/2024

No ebikes. While I realize soom people have difficuties biking with regular bikes, I have had too many close calls with fast ebike riders on trails. They are not compatable with walking.

Anonymous 11/14/2022

I want to thank you for providing trails and trail access in McDonald and Dunn forests and encourage you to continue to increase the trail system. I am an avid cyclist who enjoys the trails in the dry season and the gravel roads in the wet season. I feel extremely fortunate to be able to share the diversity of forests and landscapes that are within biking distance from many homes. Expanding the multi-use trail network will allow more people to appreciate the forest, alleviate crowding on peak days, and will provide key access and escape routes for firefighters. The same newly built trail that may provide enjoyment, health benefits, and education to many could be a life saving escape route or the beginning of a control line during a wildfire. I support Team Dirt as a member and trail build volunteer and I appreciate the mutually beneficial relationship between OSU and organizations such as Team Dirt. My hope is you will consider expanding the trail network within McDonald Forest and into Dunn Forest.

Anonymous 06/04/2024

The forestry manager needs oversight. the current planning members were hand-picked by the manager,. This process should be both advisory and oversight. Members of the advisory group should be chosen both for their knowledge, and a certain number should be chosen by people outside the Forestry Department. A number of yrs ago several acres of old growth forest were logged. The investigation showed that since there was no official prohibition about this, an apology and new policy and procedure were developed. The revenues went to support the operations of the department responsible. That was just plain wrong. They should have used the funds to develop outside resources (aborists, e.g.) to do regular observations. Also, this experienced manager should have some custodial sense for the resource. Advertised as #1 Forestry School, one has to wonder what the students took away from that experience. Look for loopholes, exploit if possible, apologize, and collect the proceeds to boost the department budget.

Anonymous 10/19/2022
Despite how one may feel about the management plan of the OSU Research Forests, I think everyone that utilizes the forests can agree that they love the forests for one reason or another. How to steward the forests seems to be where the controversy lies.
I believe that the new management plan needs to utilize current data and technology to be at the forefront of land management. An example of utilizing current data is the scientific fact that trees store carbon and when converted into wood products, that carbon remains within the wood products. This information right here is nothing short of amazing, and is something that should be highly considered when putting together a new management plan for the leading forestry institute of the world. Now this isn't to say clear cut the whole research forest, rather I suggest continuing on utilizing both cut-to-length thinning operations as well as variable retention harvests where seen fit. I believe the research forests does an excellent job at managing stands to become mature stands prior to harvesting, and even when harvesting those mature stands the research forest has done an excellent job at preserving the older structural trees that have many benefits to the landscape such as wildlife habitat and seed trees.
Active forest management utilizing cut-to-length thinnings, variable density harvests is something that OSU needs to continue to do. The funds generated from active forest management help fund the research forest as well as the College of Forestry. OSU needs to continue to be stewards of the land and continue to help preserve other ecosystem services such as water, wildlife, and recreation
Anonymous 01/30/2023
There should be no harvesting of trees over 100 years old.
There should be more trails builit, produce the maximum recreation
opportunities (hard trails and easy trails).
NO eBikes!
Be good land guardians!
Anonymous 10/28/2024

Thanks for hosting the community forum meeting tonight in room 117 Peavy Hall. It was informative to say the least.
I am not sure how people can say "can't we just not manage the forest" in one breath, sound the alarm bell of climate change and catastrophic wildfire in the other breath and not understand that they are compromising the very health of the forest, not to mention humankind and infrastructure. I know when the fire engines roll into our neighborhood and look at our next door neighbor, our neighbor across the street and lastly look at our house, they will set up camp at our house because the other neighbors houses are destined to burn based on the underbrush, dead trees and downed limbs. That's the result of ""unmanaged"" it burns to the ground - how come they don't see this?
I was sitting and listening to the experts on managing the forest and hoping that my cardiologist doesn't have a community forum of experts like therapists, psychology majors and people who think they know about heart health to decide about my heart surgery. We so appreciate the recreational offerings at the forest that we can't say Thank You enough - so THANK YOU and OSU FORESTERS keep on managing the forests well - as you have done. 

Anonymous 11/13/2022
It’s hard to have a super strong opinion on this without having access to the full management plan. However, I am familiar with the past management of the college forest and the general direction management will be heading from this point forward.
The college forest has always had such a good balance of recreation, education, and active timber management. I got my BS in forest management at OSU and spent a lot of time in and out of the MacDunn between class, forestry club, recreation on the weekend, and working on the student logging crew for 3+ years. I think the way OSU manages the MacDunn is a perfect example of a diverse way to manage multi use land in Oregon. In a world of a lot extremes I think they take a very balanced approach to what the users of the forest want and how to keep timber management going with educational opportunities for students/young professionals and some economic stability. I can’t stress enough how much my work on the student logging crew prepared me for my career. Almost 6 years into my job I look back at think of all the practical learning opportunities and how that gives me an advantage in my work. I think the access that the public has to people like Fitz is incomparable to any other land manager/decision maker in the state. Most decision makers have multiple levels of bureaucracy and specialists to run interference on answering the public or ever having to deal with the true public. I’ve always admired how Fitz and Brent approach timber management but I am even more impressed how much they care about the public relations and issues that face the MacDunn.
OSU has always been a top tier forestry program. The education stands out in the industry. Balancing these management styles is how we should be teaching our next generation of foresters. Finding common ground and using science to back it up. Understanding the scope of projects and really understanding the entire landscape you work on.
Overall I believe OSU should keep managing their timber, but also keep the Corvallis community involved with plenty of recreational opportunities. People take for granted their access to public land, OSU does a great service to their community keeping their lands open, many places don’t.
Anonymous 06/03/2024

The forest plan is complex as there are many factors and trade-offs to consider. Please retain and update the excellent historical and structural overview found on pages 6-13 of the 2005 plan. I favor stress in carbon storage given the climate crisis we are facing. Retaining old growth and fire resilience are important. Recreation is an important value in our community, but a balance should be found. Minimizing impacts of logging and overuse should be included in the evaluation

Anonymous 09/27/2022
It is vitally important that active commercial forest management be maintained as one part of the focus of management on the McDonald-Dunn research forest lands. Using these lands to train the next generation of Foresters in real world management scenarios is critical to helping foster sustainable yield forest management throughout the United States. As a Unit Forester for Washington DNR I have had more than one OSU graduate work for me. It is apparent that their education from OSU was influenced by their ability to participate in and learn from active forest management while in school. I cannot overstate the beneficial value of this practical component to their education, and the influence that it had on their ability to make decisions not just as foresters but as land managers and stewards of state managed forests.
In addition to the educational benefits of sustained yield forest management, there are also benefits to our society in maintaining a viable commercial forest management component to these research lands. Without a continued supply of sustainably and locally produced forest resources, our society will inevitably have to import our forest products. These products are more often than not imported from countries that do not have the same robust environmental protection framework that we benefit from here. In addition the greenhouse gas footprint of these imported products will be dramatically higher. Maintaining active sustained yield forestry on the McDonald-Dunn research lands will demonstrate a commitment that OSU is an active partner in ensuring our forest products are produced in the most sustainable and equitable manner possible. These research lands are uniquely situated to support an array of forest management objectives that would foster collaborative participation in the lands management process
Anonymous 10/28/2024

Class 1 Electric bikes are a constantly growing category of the bicycle industry. As Oregon, the NFS, and many other states evaluates Class 1 emtb's and allow them in more and more places, it's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Choosing to be on the side of when sooner than later will only encourage people to find more value of the trail areas they have locally, encouraging them to be more active and participant in maintaining and caring for those spaces.

Anonymous 06/03/2024

Large trees sequester carbon dioxide, a large factor in climate change. Studies done by OSU have shown the importance of retaining mature trees as well as ancient trees to help mitigate climate change. Contiguous forests are also important for many species. All uncut mature, large and old growth trees should not be cut, because there is more to learn about life while it is still living. Learning how to clearcut is not a difficult lesson; learning about living systems is. Corvallis, and OSU, should embrace the changes that need to be made and show that the studies conducted by environmental scientists are being utilized, not disregarded