DOCSLIB.ORG

Comment Summary: Oregon Consensus Report on the Elliott State Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Oregon Consensus Report Comment Summary and Complete Comments Received Comment Summary: Oregon Consensus report on the Elliott State Forest The Oregon Department of State Lands (Department) engaged Oregon Consensus, a program of the National Policy Consensus Center at Portland State University, as a neutral party to assist with outreach and overall work toward decoupling the Elliott State Forest from the Common School Fund. In October 2018, Oregon Consensus completed stakeholder interviews regarding decoupling the Elliott State Forest from the Common School Fund and submitted their final report to the Department. The report summarized what was heard in the interviews and discussed key themes, issues, and considerations for successful decoupling. The Department invited the public to read the final report and provide feedback on report findings. Feedback was accepted from October 9 to November 15, 2018. The Department received comments representing feedback from more than 50 individuals and organizations. As the Oregon Consensus Report indicated, perspectives regarding the future of the Elliott State Forest vary widely. Comments received illustrated this range of perspective. Though specific comments often offered highly detailed and nuanced feedback, general themes within the comments include: Decoupling the Forest from the Common School Fund. Comments reflected a variety of perspectives related to decoupling, compensating the school fund for the value of the Elliott, and ongoing contributions of the forest to education. Themes within the comments included: • The school fund needs to be fully compensated for the forest. Multiple commenters noted concerns with the current appraisal undervaluing the forest, and with previous approaches or litigation devaluing the forest. Some commenters indicated that funding schools should be the primary driver for any solution. • Potential for forest to continue to contribute to Oregon schools. Perspectives ranged from not supporting decoupling at all, to interest in developing some kind of ongoing monetary contribution to the school fund, to finding non-monetary ways the forest can benefit education. • Support for decoupling. Most comments supported decoupling. Several indicated partial decoupling as desirable. Commenters that did not support decoupling indicated multiple reasons, including a process that does not adequately consider the non-monetary values of the forest, loss of potential ongoing revenue, a false sense of urgency for decoupling, and an undervalued appraisal. Use of $100 million. Commenters indicated additional information, discussion, and ultimately resolution of how the $100 million in bond proceeds will be used is needed. Specific feedback mentioned use of the $100 million: • To preserve non-economic benefits. • To preserve assets not protected by the Habitat Conservation Plan or Endangered Species Act. • To preserve critical habitats. • To protect specific forest parcels. 1 of 44 Oregon Consensus Report Comment Summary and Complete Comments Received • Needs to be prioritized to decouple land unavailable for logging under a Habitat Conservation Plan or Incidental Take Permit, and then applied to specific parcels. The Forest’s Revenue Potential. Commenters offered specific ideas for revenue generation, related both to purchase of the forest as well as ongoing revenue generation. Included were a harvest tax on timber revenue, carbon credit sales, and timber harvest. Several commenters did not support any solution that required debt to be serviced from commercial logging, or noted that the level of logging they would support would not generate significant revenue. Comments regarding timber harvest varied widely. Perspectives ranged from, no logging should be allowed, to commercial log sale only as a byproduct of thinning, to supporting harvest within specific parameters. Potential Public Owners. Comments support continued public ownership, with many offering support or concern regarding specific public owners. Generally: • Some commenters indicated that ongoing transparency, public accountability and involvement, and oversight by elected officials would not be possible with some public owners. • Some commenters indicated concern with ownership that emphasized financial returns, experimental research, or that included ties to timber companies. • Some commenters indicated an ownership/management partnership by multiple public entities as a possible solution, with different roles/oversight of different areas of the forest. Need for additional information. Comments indicated the ongoing decoupling process should be informed by further examination of specific issues and topics, including: • The forest’s carbon potential and carbon market value. • The forest’s role in mitigating climate change. • The non-monetary values of the forest, particularly to education institutions and communities and other benefits to future generations. • Context regarding related education funding issues. Use of data, facts, and science to support decision-making was mentioned multiple times, specifically on issues of climate change, carbon, recreational use, and timber production and employment. Several commenters also noted the need for outstanding litigation to be settled in order for a permanent solution to be reached. Development of Habitat Conservation Plan. Multiple comments indicated that a Habitat Conservation Plan needs to be developed prior to complete decoupling. Reasons varied, but included: • HCP has impacts on multiple remaining decoupling issues. • An incomplete HCP process opens any decoupling solution to litigation. • A future public owner should play a role in development of a Habitat Conservation Plan. 2 of 44 Oregon Consensus Report Comment Summary and Complete Comments Received Forest Management Approach. Many commenters offered specific ideas on future management of the forest, and indicated a desire to have further information and input regarding a potential public owner’s management approach. Themes within the comments included: • The forest could be a model for emerging or alternative management approaches. • Management could allow for multiple uses of the forest, including recreation, habitat. conservation, preservation of old growth, and harvest (though perspectives on harvest vary. See discussion in Revenue Potential). • State agencies may have an ongoing role to play, either in an advisory capacity or economic development capacity. • Climate change, carbon must be considered in management. • Solutions must consider the realities around how the forest can be managed. • Concern regarding private or for-profit business involvement. Additional stakeholder and public engagement. Many respondents indicated a desire for increased engagement, specifically: • Inclusion of additional perspectives. Specifically mentioned were tribes, environmental groups, scientists, labor, communities of color, state agencies such as health, labor & industry, and tourism, the global warming commission, carbon scientists and economists, recreation groups, and education groups. • Ongoing opportunities to provide information regarding remaining issues and comment at decision points. The approach taken to public engagement was also noted as important. Respondents mentioned: • A transparent process. • A process that allows the public a voice in any final decision. • Use of engagement strategies that allow all voices an opportunity to be heard. • Desire for the engagement process to include decoupling as well as Habitat Conservation Plan development. Creation of a multi-agency technical team to advise the Habitat Conservation Plan development process was mentioned. • If an advisory committee is formed, the voice of the committee must be heard by the Land Board. The unlikelihood of advisory committee agreement on some issues was also mentioned. • The process should reflect that the Land Board is the ultimate decisionmaker. Finally, many respondents shared their vision for the future of the Elliott State Forest. These desired outcomes again emphasized that the forest is a special place to Oregonians for many reasons and that the ultimate solution should be carefully crafted to resonate with many. Desired outcomes mentioned included: • An Elliott State Forest that is beautiful, wild, and preserved in its natural state. 3 of 44 Oregon Consensus Report Comment Summary and Complete Comments Received • An Elliott State Forest that supports study and cultivation of natural forest practices, modern forest management, forest carbon, sustainable and environmentally appropriate timber harvest practices, endangered species management, and other topics. • An Elliott State Forest that is managed to provide multiple benefits to people, species, and environments. • An Elliott State Forest where habitat is provided and protected. • An Elliott State Forest where recreational and educational opportunities abound. • An Elliott State Forest that sets the standard for how to manage and maintain public forest land. • An Elliott State Forest that is preserved for the wide-ranging legacies it provides to our children and our planet. • An Elliott State Forest that benefits all Oregonians. 4 of 44 Oregon Consensus Report Comment Summary and Complete Comments Received Complete Comments Received 1 Robert “Bob” Main Organization/Affiliation: Chair, Coos County Board of Commissioners Having the majority of the Elliott in Coos County I find it unacceptable to not interview myself. ( board chair ) and Coos County Commissioner Melissa
Recommended publications
  • Lost in Coos

    Lost in Coos

    LOST IN COOS “Heroic Deeds and Thilling Adventures” of Searches and Rescues on Coos River Coos County, Oregon 1871 to 2000 by Lionel Youst Golden Falls Publishing LOST IN COOS Other books by Lionel Youst Above the Falls, 1992 She’s Tricky Like Coyote, 1997 with William R. Seaburg, Coquelle Thompson, Athabaskan Witness, 2002 She’s Tricky Like Coyote, (paper) 2002 Above the Falls, revised second edition, 2003 Sawdust in the Western Woods, 2009 Cover photo, Army C-46D aircraft crashed near Pheasant Creek, Douglas County – above the Golden and Silver Falls, Coos County, November 26, 1945. Photo furnished by Alice Allen. Colorized at South Coast Printing, Coos Bay. Full story in Chapter 4, pp 35-57. Quoted phrase in the subtitle is from the subtitle of Pioneer History of Coos and Curry Counties, by Orville Dodge (Salem, OR: Capital Printing Co., 1898). LOST IN COOS “Heroic Deeds and Thrilling Adventures” of Searches and Rescues on Coos River, Coos County, Oregon 1871 to 2000 by Lionel Youst Including material by Ondine Eaton, Sharren Dalke, and Simon Bolivar Cathcart Golden Falls Publishing Allegany, Oregon Golden Falls Publishing, Allegany, Oregon © 2011 by Lionel Youst 2nd impression Printed in the United States of America ISBN 0-9726226-3-2 (pbk) Frontier and Pioneer Life – Oregon – Coos County – Douglas County Wilderness Survival, case studies Library of Congress cataloging data HV6762 Dewey Decimal cataloging data 363 Youst, Lionel D., 1934 - Lost in Coos Includes index, maps, bibliography, & photographs To contact the publisher Printed at Portland State Bookstore’s Lionel Youst Odin Ink 12445 Hwy 241 1715 SW 5th Ave Coos Bay, OR 97420 Portland, OR 97201 www.youst.com for copies: [email protected] (503) 226-2631 ext 230 To Desmond and Everett How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.
  • Elliott State Forest: Next Step Considerations for Decoupling From

    Elliott State Forest: Next Step Considerations for Decoupling From

    ELLIOTT STATE FOREST Next Step Considerations for Decoupling from Oregon’s Common School Fund October 2018 An Oregon Consensus Assessment Report to the Oregon Department of State Lands and Oregon State Land Board 1 Assessment Team Peter Harkema, Oregon Consensus Director Brett Brownscombe, Senior Project Manager Amy Delahanty, Project Associate Acknowledgements Oregon Consensus deeply appreciates all those who generously gave their time to inform this assessment and report. About Oregon Consensus Oregon Consensus (OC) was established by state statute as the State of Oregon's program for public policy conflict resolution and collaborative governance. The program provides mediation and other collaborative services to public bodies and stakeholders who are seeking new approaches to challenging public issues. OC conducts assessments and designs and facilitates impartial and transparent collaborative processes that foster balanced participation and durable agreements. OC is housed in the National Policy Consensus Center in the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. Contact Oregon Consensus National Policy Consensus Center Hatfield School of Government Portland State University 506 SW Mill Street, Room 720 PO Box 751 Portland, OR 97207-0751 (503) 725-9077 [email protected] www.oregonconsensus.org 2 Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1. Purpose of report ..............................................................................................................................................
  • Download Chapter

    Download Chapter

    Table Of Contents Conservation Toolbox............................................................................................................................... 3 Outreach, Education, and Engagement................................................................................................... 4 Voluntary Conservation Programs......................................................................................................... 16 Conservation in Urban Areas.................................................................................................................. 23 Planning and Regulatory Framework..................................................................................................... 30 General References.................................................................................................................................. 50 Conservation Toolbox Everyone has a role in the successful implementation of the Oregon Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Toolbox provides recommendations to support implementation and suggestions for additional information and assistance. Key components of the Conservation Toolbox include: Outreach, Education, and Engagement Conservation in Urban Areas Oregon’s Existing Planning and Regulatory Framework Voluntary Conservation Programs General References: additional resources outside of the references provided in each section Outreach, Education, and Engagement Connecting people to nature is an important element of successful Conservation Strategy implementation. Acquiring
  • 2019-21 Budget Highlights

    2019-21 Budget Highlights

    2019-21 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS Legislative Fiscal Office September 2019 State of Oregon Ken Rocco Legislative Fiscal Office Legislative Fiscal Officer 900 Court St. NE, Rm. H-178 Paul Siebert Salem, OR 97301 Deputy Legislative Fiscal Officer 503-986-1828 September 9, 2019 To the Members of the Eightieth Oregon Legislative Assembly: Following is the 2019-21 Budget Highlights, which provides summary information on the legislatively adopted budget; legislative actions affecting the budget; program areas and agencies; state bonding and capital construction; budget notes; information technology; fiscal impact statements; substantive bills with a budget effect; and appendices containing detailed data. We hope you find this resource useful and invite you to call the Legislative Fiscal Office if you have any questions. Ken Rocco Legislative Fiscal Officer Table of Contents Summary of the 2019-21 Legislatively Adopted Budget ............................................................. 1 Summary of Legislative Actions Affecting the Budget ............................................................... 33 Program Area Summaries .......................................................................................................... 58 State Bonding and Capital Construction .................................................................................. 117 Budget Notes ........................................................................................................................... 120 Information Technology..........................................................................................................
  • A. CALL to ORDER B. APPROVAL of MINUTES of October 8, 2013 C

    A. CALL to ORDER B. APPROVAL of MINUTES of October 8, 2013 C

    MEETING NOTICE TUALATIN PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 12, 2013 - 6:00 PM Van Raden Community Center 8535 SW Tualatin Road (Inside Tualatin Community Park) A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 8, 2013 C. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Chair 2. Council Liaison 3. Staff a. Pumpkin Regatta recap b. Starry Nights and Holiday Lights on December 6, 2013 c. Centennial Time Capsule Ceremony Thursday, December 19, 2013 at noon at the Tualatin Heritage Center 4. Public D. OLD BUSINESS 1. None E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Tualatin Capital Improvement Program Kaaren Hofmann will present the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan 2. Oregon Statewide Outdoor Comprehensive Recreation Plan TPARK will review and discuss the 2013-2017 SCORP http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/PLANS/Pages/planning_SCORP.aspx F. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 1. TPARK Annual Report 2. Park and Recreation Master Plan G. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS H. ADJOURNMENT City of Tualatin DRAFT TUALATIN PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES October 8, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Wells, Valerie Pratt, Kay Dix, Stephen Ricker, Connie Ledbetter MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Andrus-Hughes, Dana Paulino, STAFF PRESENT: Carl Switzer, Parks and Recreation Manager PUBLIC PRESENT: None OTHER: None A. CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 6:06. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The August 13, 2013 minutes were unanimously approved. C. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Public – None 2. Chairperson – None 3. Staff – Staff presented an update to the 10th Annual West Coast Giant Pumpkin Regatta. Stephen said he would like to race again. TPARK was invited to attend the special advisory committee meeting about Seneca Street extension. TPARK was informed that the CDBG grant application for a new fire sprinkler system for the Juanita Pohl Center was submitted.
  • Elliott State Forest Alternatives Project

    Elliott State Forest Alternatives Project

    Department of State Lands Oregon 775 Summer Street NE, Suite 100 John A. Kitzhaber, MD, Governor Salem, OR 97301-1279 (503) 986-5200 FAX (503) 378-4844 www.oregonstatelands.us State Land Board STATE LAND BOARD John A. Kitzhaber, MD Governor December 9, 2014 Department of State Lands Kate Brown 775 Summer Street NE Secretary of State Salem, OR 97301-1279 9:00 am – Noon Ted Wheeler State Treasurer AGENDA 1. Request for approval of the minutes for the October 8, 2014 special meeting in Coos Bay and the October 14, 2014 regular meeting. 2. Annual report on the management of Common School Forest Lands. 3. Annual report on land management activities. 4. Report and possible related to the Elliott State Forest Alternatives Project. 5. Other. How to Provide Comments Comments may be presented to the Land Board at the meeting either orally or in writing. If you want to present your input orally, you will need to sign in when you arrive. A maximum of 3 minutes will be given to each speaker. However, because of the 3- hour length of the meeting, it is possible that a shorter time will be allotted in order to accommodate more speakers. Due to time limitations, not everyone who wants to speak will be able to do so. Therefore, you are encouraged to bring written copies of your comments and they will be made part of the official record. This meeting will be held in a facility that is accessible for persons with disabilities. If you need assistance to participate in this meeting due to a disability, please notify Lorna Stafford at (503) 986-5224 or [email protected] at least two working days prior to the meeting.
  • March/April 2019

    March/April 2019

    Still time to register for Spring AUDUBON SOCIETY of PORTLAND Break and Summer Camps! Page 7 MARCH/APRIL 2019 Black-throated Volume 83 Numbers 3&4 Warbler Gray Warbler Time for Modern Nesting Birds and Spring Optics Board Elections and Flood Management Native Plants Fair Articles of Incorporation Page 4 Page 5 Page 9 Page 10 From the Executive Director: BIRDATHON A Historic Gift to 2019 Counting Birds Expand Our Sanctuary Because Birds Count! Needs Your Support Registration begins March 15 by Nick Hardigg oin the biggest Birdathon ur 150-acre Portland wildlife sanctuary is the this side of the Mississippi— cumulative result of 90 years of private and public you’ll explore our region’s conservation campaigns, each one adding to the J O birding hotspots during strength and integrity of wild lands protected previously. A Sanctuaries Manager Esther Forbyn celebrates the latest addition. migration, learn from expert beautiful network of more than four miles of nature trails, now and raise funds later—protecting valuable natural land birders, AND help raise money meandering through young and old-growth forests, creeks, that connects with Forest Park—or eventually see 30 town- to protect birds and habitat and sword ferns, our Sanctuary’s founding dates back houses rise in the quietest reaches of our Sanctuary. Our across Oregon! Last year, you to the 1920s when our board envisioned protecting and costs would be $500,000 to pay off the owner’s mortgage, helped us raise over $195,000 and we hope you’ll join restoring a Portland sanctuary for birds and other wildlife.
  • Final Elliott State Forest 2011 Management Plan

    Final Elliott State Forest 2011 Management Plan

    Elliott State Forest Management Plan Oregon Department of State Lands Oregon Department of Forestry FINAL PLAN November 2011 Acronyms and Abbreviations AOP Annual Operations Plan APHIS USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practices BOF Board of Forestry BOFL Board of Forestry Land CEQ Council on Environmental Quality cfs cubic feet per second CI confidence interval CSF Common School Fund CSFL Common School Forest Lands CWA Clean Water Act DBH diameter breast height DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries DSL Oregon Department of State Lands EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESU evolutionarily significant unit FC federal candidate species FE federal endangered species FMP Forest Management Plan FPA Forest Practices Act FT federal threatened species GIS geographic information system GTR General Technical Report HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HUC hydrologic unit code IP Implementation Plan IPM integrated pest management ITP Incidental Take Permit LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission November 2011 Elliott State Forest Management Plan iii LMCS Land Management Classification System LW large wood MBF thousand board feet mg/L milligrams per liter MMBF million board feet MMMA Marbled Murrelet Management Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (formerly National
  • Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan

    Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan

    Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan Revised Plan April 2010 Oregon Department of Forestry Northwest Oregon State Forests Management Plan January 2001 Plan Structure Classes and Habitat Conservation Plan references revised April 2010 Oregon Department of Forestry FINAL PLAN “STEWARDSHIP IN FORESTRY” List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Used ATV All-terrain vehicle NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service BAT Best Available Technology NWOA Northwest Oregon Area BLM Bureau of Land Management OAR Oregon Administrative Rules BMP Best Management Practices ODA Oregon Dept. of Agriculture BOFL Board of Forestry Lands ODF Oregon Dept. of Forestry BPA Bonneville Power Administration ODFW Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality OFS Older forest structure (forest stand CMAI Culmination of Mean Annual type) Increment OHV Off-highway vehicles CMZ Channel migration zone ONHP Oregon Natural Heritage Program CRS Cultural, Recreation, and Scenic ORS Oregon Revised Statutes Inventory System OSCUR State forest inventory system CSC Closed single canopy (forest stand PM Particulate matter type) PSD Prevention of Significant CSFL Common School Forest Lands Deterioration CSRI Coastal Salmon Restoration REG Regeneration (forest stand type) Initiative RMA Riparian management area CWA Clean Water Act ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum DBH Diameter breast height RV Recreational vehicle DEQ Oregon Department of SBM Structure-based management Environmental Quality SCORP Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor DFC Desired future condition
  • Revenues from Timber in Oregon (Research Report #2-13)

    Revenues from Timber in Oregon (Research Report #2-13)

    STATE OF OREGON Research Brief LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OFFICE 900 Court St NE Rm. 143 Salem, Oregon 97301 (503) 986-1266 Research Report #2-13 February 2013 REVENUES FROM TIMBER IN OREGON This report reviews the revenues that flow primarily to local governments from property taxes on forestland and from shared revenues when timber is harvested on state or federally owned forestland. Section 1 is an overview of forestland ownership, total timber harvests, and total local government revenues. Section 2 looks at the individual local government revenue sources, and Section 3 reviews the Forest Products Harvest Tax, which funds a number of forest related programs. Overview The US Forest Service classifies 30.5 million acres of land as forestland. Of this total, 2.5 million acres (8.1%) are reserved in some manner from timber production. This is accomplished through designation as parks, wilderness areas, or application of other OREGON'S FOREST LAND BASE (2005) prohibitions on Thousands of Acres harvest. Another 3.4 Timber Land million (11.1%) are Low not capable of Quality* production of more Ownership Unreserved Unreserved Reserved Total Private than 20 cubic feet of Industrial Private 156 5,844 - 6,000 wood per acre in a Small Private 1,172 3,497 - 4,668 year. Forest revenues in this report are derived from harvest Public on public and private State 46 871 23 940 forestlands. Federal Local - 135 12 146 forestland accounts Other Public - 10 - 10 for 18.2 million acres Federal statewide. Recent Forest Service 389 11,756 2,139 14,283 regulations have National Park Service - - 159 159 significantly reduced Bureau of Land harvest on federal Management 1,393 2,238 129 3,760 lands in response to U.S.
  • Southwest Region Deer and Elk DEER COOS COUNTY

    Southwest Region Deer and Elk DEER COOS COUNTY

    Southwest Region Deer and Elk DEER COOS COUNTY (west Tioga, west Powers, north Sixes, southwest Siuslaw) Overall deer populations in Coos County appear to be stable with some increase seen in the North Sixes and portions of the Tioga Units. A decreased prevalence of deer hair loss syndrome has resulted in better fawn survival in these areas. Buck survival during last season appeared to be fairly high as well. Hunting prospects are good in all units; however a large percentage of private vs. public lands may limit hunter access in some areas of the Powers and Sixes Unit. Hunters are encouraged to scout early and contact landowners in these areas to obtain access. Hunters are also encouraged to contact private timber companies and ranch owners to ask for hunting access. There is more accessible public land in the Tioga Unit and areas such as the Elliott State Forest may be productive. Hunt for deer in brushy openings, meadows and clear cuts where brush is beginning to grow up. Areas where vehicle access is limited will be the most productive for deer. DOUGLAS COUNTY (Dixon, S. Indigo, NW Evans Creek, Melrose, SW Siuslaw, E. Tioga and NE Powers Units) Deer populations remain similar to last year with large numbers on the Umpqua Valley floor and lower populations in the Cascades and Coast ranges. Fawn ratios have been good the last ten years, showing good overall deer recruitment throughout the county. Buck ratios are similar to last year so hunters should expect to find a good number of legal bucks if they work clearcuts and other places that have brushy habitats.
  • Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

    Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan

    2020 W estern Oregon State Forest Management Plan Cover Photo: A Douglas-fir seedling on the Western Lane District, October 2018. Photo by Jason Cox, Public Affairs Specialist, Oregon Department of Forestry. Western Oregon State Forests Management Plan Oregon Department of Forestry Draft Plan December 2019 Stewardship in Forestry Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 About Oregon State Forest Lands ............................................................................................................. 1 Land Ownership and Governance ......................................................................................................... 1 Location ................................................................................................................................................. 1 The Origin and Development of State Forests .................................................................................... 12 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................. 15 The Long-Range Forest Management Plan ......................................................................................... 15 Planning