Community Action Needed! Draft GMUG Forest Plan Released for Comment

On August 13, 2021 the U.S. Forest Service released its draft revised forest plan and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest. This initiated a 90-day comment period that will conclude on November 11, 2021. Forest Plans provide a general framework to guide the management of a national forest regarding its resources, goods and services. Because Forest Plans are usually revised no more often than every fifteen years, and the current plan is 38 years old, this process will likely shape management decisions and on-the-ground conditions for decades to come. This is a critical opportunity for YOU to submit comments to the Forest Service to help ensure that the revised forest plan contains expanded wilderness recommendations, strong protections for wildlife and other important resources, addresses climate change, and much, much more.

The DEIS presents four alternatives for the public to consider, each representing a different management emphasis. Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which simply reflects the current forest plan. Alternative B is the alternative that the Forest Service is leaning towards (also sometimes called the agency’s “preferred” alternative or “proposed action”). Alternative C can be broadly described as the “active management emphasis” alternative, with no new wilderness allocations, more logging, less restrictive recreation, and more motorized settings. Alternative D can be broadly described as the “special area emphasis” alternative, with more wilderness allocations, fewer areas allocated for logging, more restrictive recreation management, and more non-motorized recreational settings. 

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, and public comments submitted between now and November, the GMUG will select from amongst the alternatives to create the final revised forest plan.

High Country Conservation Advocates (HCCA) staff are reviewing the forest plan and DEIS, and we already have some significant concerns: 

• Alternative B, the agency’s preferred or “blended” alternative, recommends just 34,000 acres for new wilderness across the entire 3.16-million acre GMUG. Compare that with the 125,000 acres that the Forest Service recommended during the Bush administration in their 2007 planning effort. Takeaway: The final plan must include significantly more wilderness recommendations.

• The Forest Service does not adequately consider the designations in the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative (GPLI) or Community Conservation Proposal. Takeaway: These must be better reflected – and incorporated – in the final plan.

• Alternative B identifies 948,200 acres of land as “suitable” for timber production, compared to 468,000 acres in the current plan. Every alternative in the draft plan posits a significant increase in suitable timber, which is a designation that interferes with consideration of responsible management of the forests that allow uses other than timber production. Takeaway: The draft plan prioritizes logging over conservation.

• Under the planning rule, the Forest Service is required to identify species of conservation concern (SCC) – species that are imperiled but not quite to the point where they need to be listed under the Endangered Species Act – and to provide ecological conditions and protective plan components to maintain their viability. However, the Forest Service failed to include as SCC several vulnerable species that deserve this designation, such as the American marten, bighorn sheep, northern goshawk, boreal owl, Lewis’s woodpecker, flammulated owl, and imperiled bats. Also, plan components for protecting SCC are weak in many cases. Takeaway: The draft plan does not adequately protect the diversity of imperiled species that occupy the GMUG.

HCCA is not alone in having these concerns. Gunnison, Ouray, San Miguel, and Hinsdale Counties united to submit a letter to the GMUG stating that “at this time we cannot support the pre-Draft plan and Preferred Alternative B as presented.” 

On the positive side, we support the significant increase in lands identified as Wildlife Management Areas (which will provide for some wildlife protection), the addition of Anthracite Creek to the Wild & Scenic River eligibility list, and the attention given in the plan to addressing recreation impacts. But these favorable provisions do not outweigh the lack of expanded wilderness recommendations, massive increase in lands suitable for timber harvest, the poor protection for rare wildlife species, and other issues. Substantial changes in the draft plan are thus needed. And that’s where you come in.

Please submit a comment today to the Forest Service sharing these – and any other – recommendations that you might have. Commenting is not voting – you can submit as many comments on as many issues as you’d like, as long as they are substantive.