Colorado Statewide Forest Resource Assessment
Colorado Statewide Forest Resource Assessment Colorado Statewide Forest Resource Assessment
Owner Spruce-Fir Lodgepole Aspen MixedConiferPonderosaPineMontaneRiparianPiñon-JuniperOakShrublandPlainsRiparianIntroducedRiparianVegetationTotalUSFS 4,003,327 1,266,761 3,148,695 873,280 884,472 369,816 302,693 443,255 455 2,954 11,295,708BLM 139,454 75,057 348,156 197,062 272,987 169,116 2,583,784 431,329 11,146 23,650 4,251,739NPS 92,116 45,972 38,361 20,782 20,854 16,905 128,579 23,042 335 1,478 388,424USFWS 1,241 1,037 1,312 1,109 528 915 1,699 1,677 3,399 120 13,039DOD - - 38 - 7,871 3,469 32,061 3,718 1,516 702 49,377Fed-Other 53 16 1,721 228 759 279 792 3,271 1,240 1,509 9,868State 28,867 42,436 110,172 57,217 83,632 22,693 135,515 81,786 23,584 3,464 589,367Tribal 70 45 11,806 17,101 45,328 8,840 307,459 10,484 - 1,170 402,303LocalGovt.4,731 7,334 15,229 13,225 73,099 6,665 10,159 14,237 14,271 436 159,386Private 300,037 222,910 1,387,185 602,356 1,137,086 335,236 1,669,543 1,352,293 190,358 81,348 7,278,351Total 4,569,896 1,661,570 5,062,674 1,782,359 2,526,617 933,934 5,172,283 2,365,093 246,306 116,831 24,437,562Table 2 – Ownership/Management by Forest Type16
Management HistoryHuman interaction with Colorado’s forests most likely began with early NativeAmerican inhabitants who gathered fi rewood for domestic use and may haveset periodic fi res to drive game (Shinneman and others 2000). Beginning inthe 1800s, European and American settlers began harvesting forests for minetimbers, railroad ties and the construction of homes and other structures(CSFS 2001). As a result of this extensive use, many of Colorado’s currentforests represent second- or even third-growth stands.The advent of federal forestland in Colorado came in 1893 when PresidentBenjamin Harrison established fi ve forest reserves in the state: the White RiverPla teau, Pikes Peak, Plum Creek, South Platte and Battle ment Mesa. These,and future reserves, were managed according to principles of sustained yieldfor maxi mum long-term timber production. Following the disas trous wildfi resof 1910, management directives also included aggressive suppression of allfi re starts, a policy that has dramatically impacted the current condition ofmany forests in the state.Although Colorado’s steep topography, xeric climate and slow-growing forestsgenerally have prevented wood production from becoming a major stateindustry, the sale of timber from federal land experienced a rapid increaseduring and after World War II, a trend that continued through the “baby boom”years of unprecedented economic growth and housing development. In 1960,the federal government added the concept of multiple use to the mandateof sustained yield on federal forest land. This new directive required thatmanagement address the values of outdoor recreation, grazing, watershedsand wildlife, in addition to traditional timber use.Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, a variety of environmental laws werepassed that still guide management of public forests today: the WildernessAct, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Endangered Species Act, NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and National Forest Management Act. Beginningin the 1980s, the concept of ecosystem management became increasinglyprominent in forest management, with emphasis on biological diversity,adaptive management and the integration of natural and human values.During the early years of the 21 st century, new challenges such as climatechange, renewable energy, intense recreational use, billion dollar fi resuppression costs and the growing disconnect between urban youth and thenatural environment have begun to demand greater attention from public landmanagers.While traditional timber management still occurs on both public and privateforests in the state, the level of activity has been signifi cantly reduced in thepast decades. Timber sale acres in Colorado’s national forests decreasedfrom 26,125 in 1990 to 7,389 in 2008 (Reader 2009). As a result, theinfrastructure that allowed forest managers to implement management onan effective scale in Colorado’s forests also has been signifi cantly reduced.Loggers and wood processing businesses in Colorado have become moredependent on sales that are designed for forest health salvage or wildfi re riskreduction, rather than commercial timber values.This reduction in the amount of acres harvested every year has resultedin a signifi cant loss of forest products businesses. When forest productsbusinesses close, forest landowners have fewer outlets for wood from forestmanagement projects. Longer haul distances to wood-using facilities meansreduced revenues for landowners. Without markets to offset the expense,17
- Page 1 and 2: Colorado Statewide ForestResource A
- Page 3: Table of ContentsI. Executive Summa
- Page 6 and 7: II.BackgroundThe Colorado Statewide
- Page 8 and 9: National Guidance for Statewide For
- Page 10 and 11: III. Overview of Colorado’s Fores
- Page 12 and 13: Spruce-Fir 9Spruce-fi r is among th
- Page 14 and 15: Mixed Conifer 14The mixed conifer f
- Page 16 and 17: Oak ShrublandsOak shrublands cover
- Page 18 and 19: Windbreaks, shelterbelts and their
- Page 22 and 23: forest management costs per acre ha
- Page 24 and 25: include standard ownership data and
- Page 26 and 27: The second metric is an estimate of
- Page 28 and 29: Map 4 - Colorado Forest Legacy Area
- Page 30 and 31: NATIONAL THEME: Protect Forests fro
- Page 32 and 33: Map 7 - Wildland Fire Susceptibilit
- Page 34 and 35: Map 8 - Wildland Fire Intensity Ind
- Page 36 and 37: ot (CSFS 2001 and 2002). Some insec
- Page 38 and 39: Map 10 - Insect and Disease Mitigat
- Page 40 and 41: is legally mandated, as well as dal
- Page 42 and 43: change, including species extinctio
- Page 44 and 45: transport of materi als that can ad
- Page 46 and 47: Map 15 - Post-Fire Erosion RiskMap
- Page 48 and 49: environment, many homes and other s
- Page 50 and 51: Owner 0.5 mile 1 mile 2 mile TotalU
- Page 52 and 53: Map 18 - Wildland-Urban Interface w
- Page 54 and 55: Map 20 - Wildland-Urban Interface w
- Page 56 and 57: They also are important partners in
- Page 58 and 59: Forest TypeAcres for Wood Products
- Page 60 and 61: of fragmentation to help forest man
- Page 62 and 63: Forest Type Low Moderate High Very
- Page 64 and 65: Map 25 - Important Habitat for Econ
- Page 66 and 67: ACRESImp. Habitat for Econ.Imp. Spe
- Page 68 and 69: Forest Type Low Moderate High Very
Owner Spruce-Fir Lodgepole Aspen MixedConiferPonderosaPineMontaneRiparianPiñon-JuniperOakShrublandPlainsRiparianIntroducedRiparianVegetationTotalUSFS 4,003,327 1,266,761 3,148,695 873,280 884,472 369,816 302,693 443,255 455 2,954 11,295,708BLM 139,454 75,057 348,156 197,062 272,987 169,116 2,583,784 431,329 11,146 23,650 4,251,739NPS 92,116 45,972 38,361 20,782 20,854 16,905 128,579 23,042 335 1,478 388,424USFWS 1,241 1,037 1,312 1,109 528 915 1,699 1,677 3,399 120 13,039DOD - - 38 - 7,871 3,469 32,061 3,718 1,516 702 49,377Fed-Other 53 16 1,721 228 759 279 792 3,271 1,240 1,509 9,868State 28,867 42,436 110,172 57,217 83,632 22,693 135,515 81,786 23,584 3,464 589,367Tribal 70 45 11,806 17,101 45,328 8,840 307,459 10,484 - 1,170 402,303LocalGovt.4,731 7,334 15,229 13,225 73,099 6,665 10,159 14,237 14,271 436 159,386Private 300,037 222,910 1,387,185 602,356 1,137,086 335,236 1,669,543 1,352,293 190,358 81,348 7,278,351Total 4,569,896 1,661,570 5,062,674 1,782,359 2,526,617 933,934 5,172,283 2,365,093 246,306 116,831 24,437,562Table 2 – Ownership/Management by <strong>Forest</strong> Type16
Change language