Tell the Forest Service Not to Degrade Streams or Cut Large, Old Trees in NE Oregon!

Dear Jason Brandt, Acting Forest Supervisor,

I am writing to express strong opposition to the Austin Project proposed by the U.S. Forest Service on lands within the Malheur National Forest and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest northeast of John Day.

The scale and scope of this proposal are deeply concerning. Authorizing more than 27,000 acres of commercial logging, including over 900 acres within riparian habitat conservation areas, puts sensitive aquatic ecosystems and imperiled fish species at risk. These watersheds provide critical habitat for steelhead and bull trout, both of which depend on cold, clean water and intact streamside forests for survival. Logging and road construction in these areas threaten to degrade water quality, increase sedimentation, and further stress already vulnerable populations.

The proposal to construct 43 miles of new road, utilize 574 miles of existing roads, and close zero miles of damaging roads is also alarming. Roads fragment habitat, undermine elk security, and are a primary source of sediment to streams. Rather than expanding the road network, the agency should prioritize decommissioning roads that harm fish and wildlife habitat and focus any necessary fuel treatments near existing infrastructure and communities.

Perhaps most troubling is the proposal to amend the forest plan to eliminate protections for large, old trees and old-growth stands. Large and old trees make up only a tiny fraction of trees across Northeast Oregon’s national forests, yet they provide disproportionately high ecological value—offering critical wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and resilience against wildfire and climate change. Eliminating long-standing protections for these trees is unjustified and shortsighted. The Forest Service should instead commit to protecting and retaining all trees and snags of all species greater than 21 inches in diameter.

The project area is also home to the remarkable “Humongous Fungus,” a massive honey mushroom (Armillaria ostoyae) organism that spans approximately 2,385 acres and is widely recognized as the largest known organism on Earth. This globally significant natural feature deserves careful protection. The Forest Service should establish a generous protective buffer around the full extent of the fungus and ensure that no logging, road construction, or other ground-disturbing activities compromise its integrity.

Additionally, I am concerned by the agency’s decision to invoke an “emergency determination” to limit public review and bypass the standard objection process. This project was first proposed years ago. Labeling it an emergency now appears to be an attempt to curtail meaningful public participation rather than a response to any sudden, unforeseen threat. Decisions of this magnitude require full transparency, thorough environmental review, and robust public engagement.

For these reasons, I urge the Forest Service to:

• Reject any forest plan amendments that eliminate protections for large, old trees and instead retain and protect all trees and snags over 21 inches in diameter.

• Prohibit commercial logging within riparian habitat conservation areas and ensure no adverse effects to fish from any authorized activities.

• Protect unroaded areas larger than 1,000 acres, including Upper Middle Fork John Day and Big Springs, from commercial logging.

• Refrain from authorizing new road construction, including so-called temporary roads, and prioritize decommissioning roads that harm fish and wildlife habitat.

• Focus any commercial thinning within the Wildland-Urban Interface rather than in remote backcountry areas.

• Establish strong, science-based protections and buffers for the Humongous Fungus.

• Withdraw the “emergency determination” and allow for a full public comment and objection period.

Our public lands belong to all of us. The Forest Service has a responsibility to steward these forests for clean water, wildlife habitat, climate resilience, and future generations—not to weaken protections for the very values that make them irreplaceable.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,