How do I submit a public comment on South Uncompahgre Hazardous Fuels and Ecological Resiliency?

The public comment window for this decision closed on September 21, 2026. The record of what was at stake stays on this page.

When is the public comment deadline for South Uncompahgre Hazardous Fuels and Ecological Resiliency?

The comment window closed on September 21, 2026.

Do public comments actually change federal decisions?

Yes, when they are substantive. Agencies are legally required to read and respond to substantive comments before finalizing a rule, and specific personal comments about real places and real uses carry far more weight than identical form letters. Courts have overturned rules when agencies ignored substantive comments.

← All fights

Record closed September 21, 2026

Comments closed September 21 · decided

GMUG forests near decision on South Uncompahgre Plateau vegetation project

U.S. Forest Service · Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Uncompahgre Plateau

What: Up to 50,000 acres of timber harvest across the Uncompahgre Plateau could be approved for the next 20 years.
Where: Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests, Uncompahgre Plateau, Naturita Division, CO
How much: Only those who submitted written comments in the earlier public participation window may file a formal objection now.
Decided: Comments closed September 21, 2026. The decision is on file: SUHFER Final DN and FONSI. Open it ↗Date from Forest Service legal notice in The Telluride Times ↗, read September 26, 2026.

Where these four lines come from

WhatOur plain-English read of the Forest Service project page ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
WhereThe places and states the project page names, as PLAN read them.
How muchThe first sentence of our What’s at risk read of the notice; the whole read is under Case.
DecidedSeptember 21, 2026, from Forest Service legal notice in The Telluride Times, published August 6, 2026, plus 45 days under 36 CFR 218.6 ↗. Read September 26, 2026. The decision document is the one on file in PLAN’s record.
Read from PLAN’s record November 9, 2026.

What the proposal said, and what the decision did

No figure from the proposal has been checked against the decision on this fight yet. What the record does hold is the issues ledger below.

Did the agency answer?

PLAN found 9 issues in the agency’s analysis.

Each issue against the decision, unreviewed

PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA states that Tribal consultation was initiated in April 2025 and that the GMUG 'has not received feedback at this time' from any of the four consulted tribes (Navajo Nation, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe) as of the date of the Final EA.
The EA states that Tribal consultation was initiated in April 2025 and that the GMUG 'has not received feedback at this time' from any of the four consulted tribes (Navajo Nation, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe) as of the date of the Final EA.
The project area spans a landscape with over 1,900 documented cultural resources, approximately 150 of which are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and Table 8 documents continuous Indigenous occupation from the Paleoindian period through historic Ute dispossession. Signing a decision while government-to-government consultation remains open and unresolved is inconsistent with the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 and Forest Service trust responsibilities. The agency should not issue a final decision until all four tribes have had a meaningful opportunity to respond and any identified concerns have been addressed or formally resolved in the record.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Section 106 tribal consultation was initiated in April 2025 with the Navajo Nation, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Ongoing government-to-government consultation will continue to be conducted in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), NEPA, Forest Service Manual 1560, Forest Service Handbook 1509.13, and applicable executive orders.”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Tribal Consultation · PLAN’s match, unchecked
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe Biological Assessment (BA) was not complete at the time of the Final EA.
The Biological Assessment (BA) was not complete at the time of the Final EA.
The document states: 'The BA is currently being revised based on initial feedback received from the USFWS. Consultation with the USFWS will be completed prior to publication of the Final Decision. Once the USFWS concurs with the determinations made for federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed (TEP) species, as outlined in the Wildlife, Botany, and Noxious and Invasive Weeds section, concurrence dates will be recorded in the Final Decision Notice.' The EA therefore presents species effect determinations (e.g., 'may affect but is not likely to adversely affect GUSG') without the required USFWS concurrence in hand. A signed FONSI based on an incomplete Section 7 consultation is procedurally premature and may not lawfully authorize ground-disturbing activities that could affect federally listed species. The agency should withhold the decision until USFWS issues formal concurrence on all TEP determinations and should make that concurrence publicly available before the decision is signed.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Per the Endangered Species Act Informal Section 7 Consultation requirements, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) consultation was completed on September 29 2026. The USFWS concurred with the U.S. Forest Service determinations.”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Endangered Species Act · PLAN’s match, unchecked
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA authorizes up to 181,400 acres of prescribed burning outside the HFMZ over a 20-year period, yet the fire modeling used to justify the decision is based only on current conditions.
The EA authorizes up to 181,400 acres of prescribed burning outside the HFMZ over a 20-year period, yet the fire modeling used to justify the decision is based only on current conditions.
The document states that 'FlamMap modeling indicates there is currently little potential for active crown fire activity' and that 'less than one percent (or 465 acres of the Project area) would burn at a high to very high intensity under the No Action Alternative.' If the existing fire hazard is already low under current conditions, the EA does not explain why landscape-scale treatments outside the HFMZ are urgently needed now rather than phased over time as conditions change. The agency should provide a quantified analysis of how fire risk changes over the 20-year planning horizon under the No Action Alternative to justify the full scope of the outside-HFMZ prescribed burn program, or narrow the authorization to areas where modeling shows materially elevated risk within a defined near-term window.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Treatments would reduce surface and ladder fuels, crown density, and flame lengths, producing minor-to-moderate long-term reductions in crown fire activity along potential operational delineation (POD) boundaries and improving suppression effectiveness.”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Fire, Fuel, and Air Quality · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA dismisses without detailed analysis a commenter-proposed alternative that would limit silvicultural treatments to the 21,200-acre EIP footprint.
The EA dismisses without detailed analysis a commenter-proposed alternative that would limit silvicultural treatments to the 21,200-acre EIP footprint.
The rationale given is that constraining treatment to the EIP 'would foreclose the Forest Service's ability to respond adaptively.' However, the document also acknowledges that the EIP was created through systematic multi-factor stand selection, field reconnaissance from 2019-2024, and LiDAR analysis, and that it 'identifies areas of priority treatment within the first ten years of implementation.' In other words, the agency already has a well-defined, analytically grounded alternative that addresses the near-term purpose and need. Dismissing it without quantitative comparison of effects violates NEPA's requirement to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives. The agency should analyze the EIP-only alternative in detail, including a comparative effects table, so decision-makers and the public can evaluate the tradeoffs between the full AOO and a more bounded action.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“The Responsible Official sufficiently considered the proposed alternatives and documented appropriate rationale for not analyzing additional alternatives in detail. The Responsible Official followed appropriate NEPA implementing regulations in preparing an EA for the project.”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Administrative Review and Objection Process · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA identifies 12 municipal watersheds within the project area and acknowledges that proposed SUHFER actions are anticipated to occur within them, yet the analysis of effects to drinking water sources is deferred entirely to the implementation checklist phase.
The EA identifies 12 municipal watersheds within the project area and acknowledges that proposed SUHFER actions are anticipated to occur within them, yet the analysis of effects to drinking water sources is deferred entirely to the implementation checklist phase.
The document states that 'a review of land management authorizations and on-the-ground structure delineations would provide guidance and clarify applicable PDFs,' and that 'delineation of watershed resources and features is expected to occur before Project implementation.' One of those watersheds, Naturita Canyon CRA, is explicitly noted as a municipal water supply, though the document concedes 'it is unknown which municipal water supply is provided by the Naturita Canyon CRA.' The agency cannot lawfully find no significant impact to municipal drinking water when it has not yet determined which community's water supply is at stake or what protections apply. The agency should identify each affected municipal water system by name, disclose the specific protections that will apply in each watershed, and complete that analysis before signing the decision.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Short-term increases in road density and stream crossings, and the potential for erosion and sedimentation, would be minor to moderate with the implementation of watershed PDFs, and no significant effects are anticipated.”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Watershed · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA proposes up to 8,000 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland treatments for wildlife habitat improvement, including mastication, chipping, pile burning, and broadcast burning, while simultaneously acknowledging that the pinyon jay (a species petitioned for ESA listing) has documented habitat within the project area and that 6,521 acres of pinyon-juniper dominant life form are subject to treatment.
The EA proposes up to 8,000 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland treatments for wildlife habitat improvement, including mastication, chipping, pile burning, and broadcast burning, while simultaneously acknowledging that the pinyon jay (a species petitioned for ESA listing) has documented habitat within the project area and that 6,521 acres of pinyon-juniper dominant life form are subject to treatment.
The document concedes that 'HFMZ activities would have long-term detrimental effects to pinyon-juniper woodlands and nesting sites' for this species. Yet the EA concludes these effects are 'insignificant and discountable' based solely on the absence of confirmed colonies in the project area and a claim that only 'a few surveys have been completed.' The agency cannot reasonably discount long-term habitat loss for a petitioned species on the basis of inadequate survey effort. The agency should complete systematic pinyon jay colony surveys across the full treatment footprint and incorporate results into a revised effects analysis before authorizing pinyon-juniper treatments.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“Hazardous fuels management zone (HFMZ) activities would result in long-term indirect effects to pinyon-juniper woodlands and to pinyon jay nesting, caching, and foraging habitat. These effects are considered insignificant and discountable with PDFs.”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Table 5. Summary of Short- and Long-term Effects by Resource · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA projects that climate change will render ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and Douglas-fir habitat 'unsuitable' on the Plateau within decades, citing Worrall and Rehfeldt 2021.
The EA projects that climate change will render ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and Douglas-fir habitat 'unsuitable' on the Plateau within decades, citing Worrall and Rehfeldt 2021.
The same source projects that pinyon-juniper and Gambel oak 'are expected to persist and expand as climate change progresses.' Yet the Proposed Action directs up to 36,000 acres of silvicultural treatment into ponderosa pine and warm-dry mixed-conifer stands, the ecosystem category the agency's own climate modeling identifies as at highest risk of becoming climatically unsuitable. The EA does not reconcile whether intensive investment in treating stands that may be ecologically unviable within the project's 20-year implementation window represents sound use of public funds or achieves lasting resilience. The agency should directly analyze whether silvicultural treatments in high-vulnerability ponderosa pine stands are likely to achieve the stated desired future condition given projected climate trajectories, or whether resources would be better directed to more climatically suitable ecosystems.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“For the purposes of strategic planning in the context of environmental uncertainty, the RAD framework was combined with the ecosystem and vulnerability mapping to qualitatively characterize default management postures designed to enhance ecosystem resilience. For example, 'Resist' actions would be targeted in less vulnerable cool-moist mixed-conifer stands, while 'Direct' actions would be targeted in more vulnerable cool-moist mixed-conifer stands.”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Resist-Accept-Direct (RAD) · PLAN’s match, unchecked, an answer in part
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA relies on condition-based management (CBM) to defer site-specific analysis to implementation checklists, yet the document simultaneously claims to have analyzed effects at the EA level.
The EA relies on condition-based management (CBM) to defer site-specific analysis to implementation checklists, yet the document simultaneously claims to have analyzed effects at the EA level.
The Watershed section candidly states that 'the actual activity polygons would be determined based on field reconnaissance and additional GIS analysis. Therefore, cumulative detrimental soil disturbance per activity area is not assessed in this analysis.' This is not a minor gap: the project authorizes up to 50,000 acres of ground-disturbing silvicultural treatments, up to 44 miles of new temporary roads, and hazardous fuels work across 181,400 acres outside the HFMZ, yet the agency cannot assess cumulative soil disturbance because the locations are unknown. NEPA requires that environmental consequences be analyzed before a decision is made, not after. The agency should either constrain the project to the known 21,200-acre EIP footprint where site-specific analysis is possible, or prepare an EIS with full cumulative soil and watershed analysis before authorizing ground-disturbing work across the broader AOO.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“I do not find the CBM approach to be programmatic. A programmatic analysis discloses effects in general terms and tiers to subsequent, site-specific NEPA decisions that separately authorize ground-disturbing activities. Instead, my decision authorizes a defined set of treatments within a defined 267,300-acre project area over a 20-year implementation period”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Consideration of Specific Comments or Concerns · PLAN’s match, unchecked
PLAN’s match, not yet checked by a personThe EA dismisses an alternative that would prepare a programmatic EIS followed by site-specific EAs, stating that 'the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action would be identical regardless of whether they were analyzed in a programmatic EIS or a project-level EA.' This reasoning is circular: the entire point of a programmatic EIS is that it would require the agency to fully disclose and analyze cumulative effects, alternatives, and mitigation at a scale commensurate with the 20-year, 267,300-acre decision before irreversible commitments are made.
The EA dismisses an alternative that would prepare a programmatic EIS followed by site-specific EAs, stating that 'the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action would be identical regardless of whether they were analyzed in a programmatic EIS or a project-level EA.' This reasoning is circular: the entire point of a programmatic EIS is that it would require the agency to fully disclose and analyze cumulative effects, alternatives, and mitigation at a scale commensurate with the 20-year, 267,300-acre decision before irreversible commitments are made.
The EA itself repeatedly defers critical analyses (soil disturbance, municipal watershed protection, tribal feedback, USFWS concurrence) to the implementation phase. That pattern of deferral is precisely the analytical gap that a programmatic EIS is designed to prevent. The agency should prepare an EIS for this project, or at minimum demonstrate how the CBM approach satisfies NEPA's hard-look requirement without an EIS given the acknowledged gaps in the current analysis.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis
“I find that the selected alternative would not result in significant effects on the human, physical, or biological environment as defined at 40 CFR 1501.6. The CBM approach reflects a project-specific analysis appropriate to the scale and objectives of this Project, and the preparation of an EIS is not warranted.”
The agency’s own words, SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗, Consideration of Specific Comments or Concerns · PLAN’s match, unchecked

Decision notice: SUHFER Final DN and FONSI ↗

PLAN's read: high threat

A language model's read of the agency's notice, not an agency rating and not an editor's finding. It’s read from the official notice ↗, and it isn’t a grade.

Up to 50,000 acres of timber harvest across the Uncompahgre Plateau could be approved for the next 20 years.

What’s at risk

Only those who submitted written comments in the earlier public participation window may file a formal objection now. The project would authorize commercial and non-commercial timber harvest across up to 50,000 acres, plus treatments affecting Gunnison sage-grouse critical habitat in pinyon-juniper and sagebrush ecosystems on the Uncompahgre Plateau.

If this goes through

If approved, the Forest Service would have a 20-year authorization to carry out large-scale vegetation treatments across 267,300 acres, locking in that framework before any further public challenge is possible.

Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.

The agency’s own analysis

What the notice says, and what it leaves out

The window has closed; the record of what was missing stays.

Watershed ↗
The agency says
“cumulative detrimental soil disturbance per activity area is not assessed in this analysis”
The EA relies on condition-based management (CBM) to defer site-specific analysis to implementation checklists, yet the document simultaneously claims to have analyzed effects at the EA level.
Wildlife, Botany, and Noxious and Invasive Weeds ↗
The agency says
“The BA is currently being revised based on initial feedback received from the USFWS. Consultation with the USFWS will be completed prior to publication of the Final Decision.”
The Biological Assessment (BA) was not complete at the time of the Final EA.
Fire, Fuel, and Air Quality ↗
The agency says
“FlamMap modeling indicates there is currently little potential for active crown fire activity. This condition would be maintained by the Proposed Action.”
The EA authorizes up to 181,400 acres of prescribed burning outside the HFMZ over a 20-year period, yet the fire modeling used to justify the decision is based only on current conditions.
Table 5: Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ↗
The agency says
“Constraining authorized treatment strictly to the 21,200-acre EIP would foreclose the Forest Service's ability to respond adaptively to post-fire recovery needs, drought-driven mortality, insect and disease events, and emerging treatment opportunities across the broader 116,300-acre AOO over the 20-year implementation period.”
The EA dismisses without detailed analysis a commenter-proposed alternative that would limit silvicultural treatments to the 21,200-acre EIP footprint.
Watershed ↗
The agency says
“It is unknown which municipal water supply is provided by the Naturita Canyon CRA.”
The EA identifies 12 municipal watersheds within the project area and acknowledges that proposed SUHFER actions are anticipated to occur within them, yet the analysis of effects to drinking water sources is deferred entirely to the implementation checklist phase.
Table 11. Summary of Effects to Roadless Characteristics ↗
The agency says
“Tribal consultation was initiated in April of 2025 and is ongoing; the GMUG has not received feedback at this time.”
The EA states that Tribal consultation was initiated in April 2025 and that the GMUG 'has not received feedback at this time' from any of the four consulted tribes (Navajo Nation, Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Indian Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe) as of the date of the Final EA.
Wildlife, Botany, and Noxious and Invasive Weeds ↗
The agency says
“HFMZ activities would have long-term detrimental effects to pinyon-juniper woodlands and nesting sites.”
The EA proposes up to 8,000 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland treatments for wildlife habitat improvement, including mastication, chipping, pile burning, and broadcast burning, while simultaneously acknowledging that the pinyon jay (a species petitioned for ESA listing) has documented habitat within the project area and that 6,521 acres of pinyon-juniper dominant life form are subject to treatment.
Climate Change ↗
The agency says
“certain habitat types for species such as Englemann spruce, sub-alpine fir, and ponderosa pine may be lost.”
The EA projects that climate change will render ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and Douglas-fir habitat 'unsuitable' on the Plateau within decades, citing Worrall and Rehfeldt 2021.
Table 5: Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ↗
The agency says
“The environmental consequences of the Proposed Action would be identical regardless of whether they were analyzed in a programmatic EIS or a project-level EA, meaning this alternative does not avoid, reduce, or alter any environmental impact.”
The EA dismisses an alternative that would prepare a programmatic EIS followed by site-specific EAs, stating that 'the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action would be identical regardless of whether they were analyzed in a programmatic EIS or a project-level EA.' This reasoning is circular: the entire point of a programmatic EIS is that it would require the agency to fully disclose and analyze cumulative effects, alternatives, and mitigation at a scale commensurate with the 20-year, 267,300-acre decision before irreversible commitments are made.

In the agency’s own words

Landscape scale Vegetation Management on South Uncompahgre Plateau and Naturita Division to actively and adaptively improve forest health and resiliency and reduce the buildup of hazardous fuels.

Forest Service project page ↗

More fights that need you

Stop weakened drilling rules across the National Petroleum Reserve in AlaskaCloses today Stop the Nationwide Post-Fire Salvage Plan Lacking Site-Level Analysis3 days left Stop NorthMet Mine from filling Minnesota wetlands and waterways18 days left

All 28 open fights →

Go deeper, free

Scorecard

See how your members of Congress vote on public lands

Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.

Open ↗The map

See the places under active threat

A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.

Open ↗

A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.