Draft Oregon state forest plan would place roughly half of lands into conservation areas, staff say

State forest staff on a call with the Forest Trust Land Advisory Committee said a revised draft of the Western Oregon State Forest Management Plan would commit about 43% of the plan area to Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) and another roughly 7% to riparian conservation areas — together approximately half the land base — and tie those commitments to a Habitat Conservation Plan and stepped monitoring, officials said.

The revised draft, presented by Nick Palazzado, deputy chief of State Forests, and Mike Wilson, state forest division chief, reorganizes earlier text into clearer goals and adds intent statements and implementation guidance, the presenters said. Palazzado said the HCP is central to the approach: “The habitat conservation areas … are approximately 43% of the total plan area, and the riparian areas … are an additional 7%,” and the combined mapping represents a substantial conservation commitment for rare and at‑risk species.

Why it matters: The mapped HCAs and the HCP, staff said, create a framework that provides regulatory certainty for some harvest and operational activities while preserving and growing old‑forest habitat in designated areas. That mix affects timber planning, county revenues and how the state will measure and report outcomes through an annual reporting cycle and 5‑ and 10‑year adaptive‑management check‑ins.

What the plan changes: Staff contrasted the revised plan with the 2010 plan, which used a shifting “desired future condition” mosaic (about 35% of the land area under that designation). The new draft maps relatively fixed HCAs and adds or tightens protections in buffers and leave‑tree rules. For example, Palazzado said buffer widths increase in some categories (a 100‑foot minimum rises to 120 feet in some fish‑bearing stream cases, and seasonal non‑fish streams get larger buffers), and leave‑tree retention moves from a landscape‑scale 5 trees per acre to a harvest‑unit scale 2 trees per acre in uplands, with riparian areas no longer counting toward that upland requirement.

On monitoring and species metrics: Palazzado said the HCP includes compliance monitoring (“are we doing what we said we were gonna do?”) and effectiveness monitoring (“is it having the intended result?”), with metrics tied to habitat growth, species response and operational outcomes such as miles of roads disconnected and fish‑passage work. He said the monitoring and reporting are linked to implementation plans and that the board will review the plan at least every 10 years.

County and risk concerns: Several county commissioners raised concerns about fiscal effects and fire risk. Chair Margaret McGruder, a Columbia County commissioner, asked whether leaving more legacy logs increases fire risk; Palazzado answered, “Yep. It does,” while adding that much of the material already exists and that risk varies by place. Mike Wilson and others said the plan emphasizes leaving larger logs that retain moisture differently than fine slash and that adaptive management will let the agencies reassess if practices increase catastrophic fire risk.

Tribal engagement and shared stewardship: Committee members pressed staff to define “shared stewardship.” Palazzado said it generally means tribes would take an active role in planning and implementing management activities so tribal values—such as first foods and cultural practices—are reflected. Staff and commissioners agreed that specific practices will vary among places and that FTLAC and counties need to remain involved as advisors.

Revenue and statutory framing: Participants discussed whether the plan language should say the plan “will provide” revenue or “strives to provide” sufficient revenue to allow ODF to manage lands for Greatest Permanent Value (GPV). Staff noted market constraints and said implementation costs — including HCP monitoring and some staff positions — matter. Mike Wilson said ODF generated about $34 million in fiscal 2025 and spent about $34 million on management costs, including recreation and other functions.

Next steps and public process: Palazzado said the department plans to start rulemaking on June 1 with a 30‑day comment period and a public hearing scheduled for June 23, followed by a special board meeting in July to consider final approval. Staff said they will return in September and January with refined performance measures and a 10‑year implementation plan model.

What’s next: The board of forestry will consider the plan and performance measures in the coming months; the department will collect public comments during the formal rulemaking window and report implementation metrics annually and at 5‑ and 10‑year adaptive check points.