ODF outlines draft Western Oregon forest plan and HCP; public questions focus on accountability, water and barred owls

Oregon Department of Forestry staff on the State Forest Division laid out the draft Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan (FMP) in a public informational webinar and fielded questions on accountability, species protections and local impacts.

Justin Buttrus, administrative rules coordinator for the State Forest Division, opened the session and said the meeting was informational only and would not receive public comment, noting that the presentation and written materials were posted and the recording will be available on YouTube.

Mike Wilson, state forest division chief, framed the FMP within state law and administrative rule and said the plan is intended to replace the existing Northwest and Southwest state forest plans and align forest management with a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to provide Endangered Species Act compliance for covered species. "It's a very high-level plan," Wilson said, adding that many specifics will be expressed later in HCP commitments and in implementation and annual operations plans.

Nick Polizato, deputy chief of state forests, summarized the plan chapters and the management approach. He described chapter 1 as the plan scope and guiding principles, chapter 2 as the management approach and landscape classifications (general stewardship, focused stewardship, high-value conservation areas and special use lands), chapter 3 as resource goals and strategies for 13 forest resources, and chapter 4 as guidelines for implementation, adaptive management and public engagement. Polizato described an "ecologically sustainable" approach intended to sustain ecosystem services while allowing active management across multiple scales.

Staff emphasized the three-tier planning framework: the FMP and HCP set policy sideboards, implementation plans translate those goals into decade-scale, geographic strategies and annual operations plans set specific field activities and timber sales. "The FMP is expected to be broad enough to function for many decades; implementation plans usually set objectives for a single decade," Polizato said.

ODF staff described outreach to tribal governments (government-to-government coordination), the Board of Forestry, the Forest Trust Land Advisory Committee and thousands of public comments received during earlier engagement. Wilson said ODF began tribal engagement before initiating formal rulemaking and will continue engagement throughout implementation.

Rulemaking and next steps: staff said rulemaking began in November, the public comment period closes January 31, four public hearings are scheduled (Jan. 13, 15, 20 and 22), and staff expect to summarize comments and present recommended changes for the Board of Forestry with a target of June for board consideration. If adopted, implementation planning and tribal engagement for implementation are slated to begin winter 2026 and conclude in June 2027.

Q&A highlights and public concerns: The largest portion of the session was a question-and-answer period. Public speakers pressed ODF on whether the draft is sufficiently prescriptive and how accountability would be enforced. Michael Lang said some plan goals appear vague and asked how the public can hold ODF accountable. Wilson and Polizato replied that the FMP is intentionally high level; specific harvest objectives, performance measures and site-level protections will be set in implementation plans and the HCP and will include public comment opportunities.

Several attendees asked about scientific grounding for the HCP and historical landscape conditions. Bob Zybach said he was concerned by an absence of historical research supporting proposed protections; ODF staff said they used existing peer-reviewed research, consulted federal agencies in negotiating aquatic and riparian strategies, and are participating in ongoing stand- and fire-history research with university partners.

Water and sediment protections: written and live questions asked whether the plan protects watersheds and private drinking-water sources from sediment and pesticides. Staff said aquatic and drinking-water goals are included in the FMP, that the HCP and associated protocols provide riparian buffers and sediment controls, and that ODF follows Forest Practices Act pesticide application standards and seeks to minimize herbicide use. Eric Moberly, aquatic and riparian specialist, described updated stream-survey protocols and best-management practices for road design, maintenance and decommissioning to reduce sediment delivery.

Timber sale compliance and enforcement: staff said timber-sale contracts incorporate FMP and HCP requirements; ODF administers and inspects operations and can apply contract penalties when operators breach protections (for example, cutting marked leave trees).

Harvest levels and older-forest targets: attendees asked whether the FMP or related processes would achieve previously discussed objectives, such as a 30% target for complex/older forest on the North Coast. Staff said the board is not authorized to set an annual harvest objective within the FMP; implementation plans and modeling (including rotation-age modeling) will set harvest levels and time-bound objectives if the Board adopts such performance measures.

Barred-owl management and funding: staff confirmed that barred-owl management under the HCP includes permitted lethal removal as a conservation action; they said a conservation fund tied to harvest volume (estimated near $1 million a year at current modeling using a $5-per-MBF fee) would be split between watershed restoration and terrestrial actions, including barred-owl management. Staff said an HCP administrator will coordinate prioritization each year to manage funding trade-offs across species and aquatic restoration needs.

Local outreach and unregistered water sources: attendees asked about stronger local communications and protections for unregistered domestic water sources. Staff said the FMP contains goals about public engagement but that specific communications and adjacent-landowner outreach will be implemented through implementation and operational plans; they encouraged people with unregistered water sources to work with the Water Resources Department to register and to submit comments identifying these sources so districts can flag them during annual planning.

What happens next: the public comment period and hearings are the formal opportunities to enter concerns into the rulemaking record. Staff said they will summarize comments, prepare recommended changes for the Board of Forestry and, if the board adopts the plan as rule, transition into development of implementation and annual operations plans that will contain more site-specific protections and measurable objectives.

The webinar adjourned after staff encouraged written comments before the January 31 deadline.