The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Comments due to Forest Service November 12
[ By Katherine Nettles and Mark Reaman ]
Local government entities have commented to the U.S. Forest Service that the agency has not gone far enough in considering local input and values in its draft plan for the future of local public lands management. In response to the Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) Forest Plan revision draft, released this past summer, the Crested Butte town council and Gunnison County commissioners have expressed their disappointment with the first Forest Plan revision in 37 years. Both Crested Butte and the county have articulated that Alternative D in the draft plan most closely aligns with their wishes, but that it too needs considerable revising. When asked, Mt. Crested Butte said the town has not yet discussed the proposal.
The GMUG initiated the revision process in June 2017, and released the draft plan in August 2021 after accepting extensive public input that included local governments, non-profits and a comprehensive recommendation from the regional alliance Gunnison Public Lands Initiative (GPLI). The ultimate Forest Revision plan will shape management and on-the-ground decisions across more than 3 million acres of public land, according to the USFS, by providing a general framework to guide a forest in managing its resources, goods and services.
The Town of Crested Butte submitted a comment letter this week asking for further revisions, and Gunnison County will submit a similar comment letter in time for the November 12 comment deadline.
During the November 2 Gunnison County commissioners meeting, commissioner chairperson Jonathan Houck outlined the overall themes of the commentary he is composing with the help of county attorney Matthew Hoyt. Commissioners approved of the overview, and Houck will submit the final draft to the Forest Service. He said it will be publicly presented in next week’s commissioner meeting, and the full comment letter will be included in the meeting portfolio for the public to view in advance.
The major points include that the plan should incorporate the recommendations of the GPLI; should incorporate more “sensible protections” around coal mining, fracking and other extractive industries while also accepting those practices as part of regional economies; should fully accommodate Gunnison Sage Grouse habitat; should recognize the importance of Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory and accommodate its ongoing work; should give more direction on how it will manage new mixed uses for recreational vehicles, including e-bikes, ATVs, side-by-sides and more; has “drastically increased” the amount of “suitable base” for timber allowances which could potentially become an unintentional standard for others; doesn’t adequately reflect the necessity of addressing climate change; should include more comprehensive economic analysis of recreation; and should include more comprehensive water quality analysis and impacts on municipalities.
“Those are the large, overall themes that we’ve been working on,” said Houck, noting that he is also in disagreement with the GMUG’s overall scope. “The GMUG has three different forests with different needs, managed as one. And I understand that the agency will argue that the bigger it is the more nimble and flexible it can be,” he said.
Overall, he summarized the draft “seems to be heavy on timber and motorized recreation. And they are part of the mix here, ours isn’t an anti-motorized approach, it is not anti-timber, but… We tend to be a community that looks for balance,” he said.
Commissioners Roland Mason and Liz Smith agreed that these comments are not straying too far from the county’s previous comments in the process, and aim to provide that balance. They also agreed with Houck’s assessment that Alternative D was the one version of the draft that most closely matched their preferences minus some revision needs. Houck observed that Alternative D basically included all public input the GMUG received, regardless of its merit.
The Crested Butte town council on Monday, November 1, determined that it too prefers Alternative D for the new GMUG forest plan. Council approved a comment letter to be sent to the Forest Service as well before the November 12 comment deadline. The letter stated town priorities that included protection of the town watershed, implementation of the GPLI recommendations, prioritizing ecosystem services over commodity extraction, asking for a greater investment in recreation management and utilizing good forestry management practices around timber harvesting. The letter makes clear it does not support alternatives A, B or C in the proposed form and would support Alternative D with modifications.
The Forest Service has issued a deadline of November 12 for all comments, although some talk of requesting an extension has surfaced in recent weeks due to the quick turnaround from the revision draft release and chance to provide comments.
More information, comment submissions and the full revision plan can be found at www.gmugrevision.com.
