Gunnison County files objection to GMUG plans

More wilderness, less timber production

By Katherine Nettles

As expected, Gunnison County has formally objected to the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) final draft for land planning and management based on the plan’s lack of consideration for local stakeholders’ own recommendations and the plan’s aggressive increase in timber harvesting and motorized recreation without following procedures  for those decisions. The GMUG released its Final Land Management Plan (LMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in August which started the clock for a 60-day objection period, and Gunnison County filed on the final day of the objection period, Monday, October 30.

The long-awaited LMP will determine how the Forest Service will manage more than two million acres of national forest in the region for at least the next 15 years. A public comment period for the general public took place after each previous draft, but only previous commenters were eligible to comment on the final draft. 

Gunnison County was eligible to object as a previous participant from the outset of the multi-year process, and submitted comments on earlier drafts from 2017 to 2021. In a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2022, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) also designated Gunnison County as a cooperating agency for the planning process. 

Gunnison County has restated positions it had taken in previous comments, particularly emphasizing its advocacy for the USFS to adopt the Gunnison Public Lands Initiative (GPLI), a proposed management plan created by a coalition of stakeholders for management of the Gunnison National Forest. Stakeholders maintain that the GPLI balances wilderness, recreation, wildlife, socioeconomic, cultural, scientific and scenic values. The county argues that the final LMP rejects “most of the material aspects of GPLI in favor of a plan that unnecessarily and improperly elevates timber harvesting over the balanced resource values proposed in GPLI.”

The County cited that its main reason for objecting is the plan’s dramatic increase of 300,000 acres (66% more than the previous LMP in 1983) slated for active vegetation management and timber production, as well as increasing motorized recreation activities allowed in the GMUG from 13% to 30%, also without the full analysis of negative environmental impacts required by the governing laws of federal public lands. 

 “Gunnison County can uncover no robust analysis on the potential negative effects that increased timber operations could have on recreational users, and in turn the recreation-based economy central to the many counties comprising the GMUG,” states the county’s objection letter. “The National Forest Socioeconomic Indicators Report demonstrates that close to 40% of private employment in Gunnison County directly relates to Forest use sectors, with a full 28.6% in travel and tourism.”

The county also objects to the USFS’ treatment of GPLI and its rejections of wilderness designations.

“In Gunnison County’s view, the most concerning [National Environmental Policy Act] violation surrounds the way USFS handled the GPLI proposal,” the letter states. It argues that the LMP imposes artificial constraints on GPLI which “appears to have purposefully rendered it infeasible and unacceptable as a preferred alternative.”

Regarding wilderness designations, the letter notes that the Forest Service recommends only 46,200 acres of wilderness in the GMUG, compared to the 324,000 acres proposed by GPLI and captured in Alternative D. The letter traces several instances where the USFS acknowledged certain lands within the GMUG where “wilderness characteristics were high,” but it still chose not to designate them as wilderness, as in Stueben Creek, Steuben-Beaver, East Beaver and Lamborn, or chose to designate a smaller acreage than recommended such as in the case of East Elk-Dillon Mesa, East Elk Creek, Pass Creek-Castle and Soap Creek. Last, the USFS “acknowledges as least moderate wilderness values, and in many cases public interest… but decides to accept little, if any, of these into the recommended wilderness category.”

The county requests six steps to resolve its objections:

1. Revise the FEIS to take a proper hard look at increased timber harvesting; 2. Remove all steep slopes (more than 40 degrees) from timber-suitable designations; 3. Disclose all communications that led to increased motorized use; 4. Place GPLI in its own alternative without improper constraints and either select that alternative or more robustly examine why GPLI is not included; 5. Re-examine recommended wilderness designations and bring the full panoply of recommended wilderness from GPLI into the selected alternative; and 6. Remove timber-suitable designations from all GPLI-recommended wilderness areas and special management areas, even if such areas are not recommended for wilderness or special management in the final plan. 

Gunnison County commissioner chair Jonathan Houck and county attorney Matthew Hoyt worked together on the county’s objection, and Hoyt said they did not track their time, “But it was many, many hours. This plan is of critical importance to the county and its residents and visitors, so we believe it was worth the time.”

Hoyt said the county’s proposed changes are also critical. “The last full management planning effort and complete plan was accomplished in 1983. We can anticipate that this plan will guide USFS management of the Gunnison National Forest for years, if not decades, to come. A plan that does not provide for robust and proper management of our Forest will undoubtedly cause serious and lasting harm to our community, our economy and our natural environment,” he said.

High Country Conservation Advocates also submitted objections to the Final LMP and EIS, citing similar concerns as those of the county. The town of Crested Butte did not file an objection.