Montrose - Daily Press

Katharhynn Heidelberg

Daily Press News Editor

MONTROSE — Just weeks after the long-awaited Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest draft plan was released, both it and scheduled public comments appear to be on hold.

Advertisement

A March 30 federal court ruling prevents the implementation of the Bush administration’s 2005 planning rules and affects all 155 national forests. According to the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton found the federal government did not properly consider the effect those rules might have on the environment. She also ruled public comment was not properly collected by the government, which she said violated the Administrative Procedures Act, National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species act when it changed planning rules.

Local GMUG forest officials relied on the 2005 rules to devise a new forest management plan, which was unveiled March 15 — after agency officials delayed its release for than one year to ensure it was in compliance with the rules. It was not immediately known how the ruling would affect the local GMUG’s 2.9 million acres.

“We just don’t have that yet,” GMUG Forest Supervisor Charlie Richmond said Tuesday. “We don’t know how it’s going to affect us. I’m sure it will, in what ways, I don’t know.”

What is certain is the 90-day comment period planned for the GMUG’s draft forest plan is now on hold. A public meeting slated for April 19 in Montrose was postponed Tuesday, along with similar meetings this month in Hotchkiss, Norwood, Grand Junction and Gunnison.

Lee Ann Loupe, public affairs specialist, said the meetings were on hold until the Forest Service can better determine the ramifications of Hamilton’s ruling. “We didn’t feel it was a good time to do the public meetings,” she said.

The fact that GMUG’s plan is still a proposal, not the final document, gives it some leeway and time for adjustments, Loupe added. “But we’re just not sure what the impact is.”

Mark Schofield of Western Colorado Congress said Hamilton’s ruling hadn’t come as a surprise to his organization.

“Our feeling is, we’re not terribly surprised. Ever since the 2005 regulations were imposed on our local national forest, we felt they would lead to an extremely vague national forest plan.”

Schofield said the problem wasn’t the fault of local forest officials, whom he characterized as “hardworking,” but of Bush administration rules. Schofield said those rules removed any language that specified what forest land could be used for.

“What that means is, it gives the agency lots of flexibility, but gives the public very little certainty,” he said.

According to the Associated Press, when the 2005 rules were announced, government officials said the changes would allow for better response to wildfires and invasive species. The 2005 rules also gave forest managers more discretion to approve commercial projects and logging without extensive environmental review, the AP reported.

“Ultimately, GMUG forest resources and West Slope communities will be better off without these weak planning (documents),” Schofield said. “It’s unfortunate our local forest officials get caught up in all this. The problem is the (2005 rules), which violate several bedrock environmental laws.”

Joe Walsh of the Forest Service’s Washington, D.C. press office said the agency was moving as quickly as possible.

“We are carefully reviewing the (Hamilton) decision with our attorneys,” Walsh said. “We’re going to go from there. How it impact individual forests, we just don’t know at this point.

“We want to make sure we’re on the right track, so we’re not speculating.”

Former Daily Press Writer Matt Hildner contributed to this story.

Comments