New plan for GMUG forest increases logging, irks environmentalists

This story first appeared in The Outsider, the premium outdoor newsletter by Jason Blevins.

In it, he covers the industry from the inside out, plus the fun side of being outdoors in our beautiful state.

A new forest plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest is riling environmental groups worried about an increase in logging across the 3.2 million-acre forest.

The Draft Record of Decision issued last month — written by Forest Supervisor Chad Stewart — replaces the forest’s 1983 management plan. The plan was launched in 2017 and the forest has collected perspectives from 900 people at 21 open houses and 16 webinars between 2017 and 2021. 

Stewart said the new plan positions his forest for addressing anticipated challenges that include “unprecedented increases in recreation, a changing climate with its potential risk of extreme weather events such as drought and severe wildfire and the need to strategically manage fuels in a rapidly developing wildland-urban interface.”

A coalition of Colorado conservation groups said in a statement that the agency has “sidelined the voices of our community” in crafting a plan that “misses the mark” in protecting wilderness and old-growth forests. 

All nine counties that make up the national forest are unwavering in their support of wildfire mitigation work on public lands. But exactly where that mitigation should take place is raising hackles. The GMUG is getting $20.8 million from the federal Inflation Reduction Act — the largest chunk of $63 million in funding for Colorado — for wildfire mitigation and supporting jobs in the forestry industry.  The $20.8 million is for 47 projects that reduce trees — or “hazardous fuels” in the parlance of wildfire mitigation — on 236,245 acres and will support local sawmills in Colorado. 

An alternative plan explored in earlier drafts of the national forest plan proposed 324,000 new acres of wilderness. The final plan sets aside 46,200 acres in 18 wilderness areas. The forest plan identifies 772,000 acres suitable for timber production with loggers producing 55,000 hundred cubic feet — or ccf, which is equal to a hundred cubic feet of volume — of lumber a year. That’s a 300,000-acre increase in acres suitable for logging compared with the 1983 plan. 

“The forest plan takes a major step backwards on protecting mature and old growth forests, despite the Biden Administration’s recent executive order to identify, protect and conserve old growth and mature forests,” reads a statement from the 12 conservation groups. 

Rocky Smith with Colorado Wild is an environmentalist who has been fighting with developers and land managers since the 1980s to protect backcountry wilderness. 

He said the conservation groups are troubled by the GMUG’s approval of logging on steep slopes, which could impact water quality. They also have concerns with too few animal and plant species in the plan recognized as needing additional protection before they become threatened or endangered. They also worry about plans to log in habitat that harbors threatened Canadian lynx and a lack of sturdy protections for the threatened Gunnison sage grouse.

Smith does not run across many forest management plans he likes. He has to think back to the 1990s to remember one for the Arapaho Roosevelt National Forest that didn’t raise his hackles.

“That was probably the best one I’ve ever seen,” he said. “And yeah, we filed objections to that one too.”

The new GMUG plan emphasizes flexibility in addressing issues and protecting resources. Typically forest plans outline “standards,” which are set-in-stone rules and “guidelines,” which are suggestions for reaching goals. The plans also outline “objectives,” which are hard-set goals and “desired conditions,” which, like guidelines, are more suggestions than rules for reaching certain benchmarks in resource protection. 

Smith said the GMUG plan “has a lot of desired conditions that should be objectives and a lot of guidelines that should be standards.”

He recognizes the need for additional logging to limit the intensity of wildfires. But he wants it closer to homes, roads, powerlines and other infrastructure, not in the backcountry. 

“I started looking at National Forest management plans in the early 1980s when logging was king; before climate change and beetles and fires were such an issue,” he said. “If logging is properly applied around infrastructure, rather than in the backcountry where you create issues with water and wildlife habitat, it can work….