Enviro groups hope to improve plan for national forest
Feedback can be submitted until Oct. 30 on Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest
By Sophie Stuber, Planet Contributor
Environmentalists have expressed concerns over the new forest plan for Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest, which would increase logging in the 3.2 million-acres of forest area. The GMUG plan determines how forest conservation and management are operated.
“The forest plan will be the guiding document that determines what will happen and what local community members and visitors may experience the national forest,” Ben Katz, public lands program director at the Western Slope Conservation Center, told the Daily Planet.
This plan updates the forest’s 1983 management plan.
“Releasing the draft record of decision for the revised plan is the culmination of several years of effort and wouldn’t be possible without our cooperators, stakeholders and engaged members of the public,” Chad Stewart, Forest Supervisor for the GMUG National Forests, said in a statement.
Around Telluride, there are some wins for wilderness protections.
“Locally we have a good amount of expanded recommended wilderness in the Sneffels Wilderness and Lizard Head Wilderness,” Mason Osgood, executive director of Sheep Mountain Alliance, told the Planet. “We’ve been fighting for those protections through the CORE Act and the San Juans Wilderness Act, so it is a victory.”
But some land that the community had requested to be protected are not included in the plan.
“The increased wilderness is not enough for what the community has asked for in terms of expansion. It is not reflected in the Gunnison area,” Osgood said.
Not all of the region will see desired wilderness protections. In community-supported proposals, Western Colorado residents had recommended 324,000 acres of new wilderness in the plan’s draft phase, but the forest plan only recommends 46,00 acres.
“Our main concern is the lack of recommended wilderness as compared to the community proposals,” Katz said.
Colorado environmental groups also worry about increased logging authorized under the new GMUG forest plan. The plan designates 772,000 acres as suitable for timber production, which accompanies forest management for “the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting and regeneration of regulated crops of trees.”
With the new plan, the forest service projects about 5,000 acres per year of timber harvest, as well as 15,000 acres per year for wildfire treatment, including prescribed burns.
“A major negative is the huge expansion of suitable timber especially in some of the higher altitude areas like Ophir Valley and the Sheep Mountain Zone,” Osgood said.
The GMUG plan runs contrary to the Biden Administration’s recent executive order to identify, protect and conserve old growth and mature forests, according to Osgood: “Considering Biden’s executive order to protect old forest growth, suitable timber goes directly against this.”
Some of this logging could take place in habitat areas for the threatened Canadian lynx.
Logging often leads to increased traffic, which can impact local residents and visitors.
“The traffic impact from increased logging trucks, noise and dust are all concerns,” Katz said. “We understand the value of doing certain timber projects for wildlife projects and for timber projects that are being done specifically to mitigate wildfires. We certainly think there are appropriate places for this, but it’s not everywhere.”
The new GMUG guidelines do include improved wildlife management areas, which environmental groups support.
“The plan does include a significant increase in wildlife management areas. We appreciate the forest service’s inclusion to protect these species, especially big game, and we hope the standards and stipulations will be strengthened to actually protect these wildlife species,” Katz said.
But locally, bighorn sheep and the threatened Gunnison sage grouse are not included in the list of protected species, Osgood noted.
“It affects our local area when the new forest plan does not identify bighorn sheep as a species of conservation concern. This means they will lack the resources to protect this species,” he said.
A coalition of environmental groups, including Sheep Mountain Alliance, is reviewing the 1,156-page Final Environmental Impact Statement and forest plan to submit comments by the objection period deadline on Oct. 30. San Miguel County is also involved in efforts to refine the GMUG forest plan.
“I certainly hope they listen to county commissioners. San Miguel County has done so much in terms of conservation for the region,” Osgood said. “With a coordinated effort, I think we can make some changes.”
Read the full article here.