Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Management Situation by Revision Topic <br /> <br />Timbt'Jr-Proct'J66ing Facilitit'J6 <br /> <br />Timber-processing facilities located near the RGNF consist of one high-speed stud mill and several <br />smaller mills. Stone Southwest Incorporated, located in South Fork, Colorado (CO), is the major <br />processor of volume coming from the RGNF. This mill has the capacity to process about 29 MMBF <br />per year. <br /> <br />Other mills that purchase timber from the RGNF include Duke City lumber in Espanola, New Mexico, <br />Wolf Creek Industries located in pagosa Springs, CO, Blue Mesa Forest Products in Montrose, CO, <br />Jackson lumber in South Fork, CO, and Pleasant logging and Milling in Monte Vista, CO. <br /> <br />There are many other small mills that purchase timber from the RGNF. Their demand for timber is <br />about 10 percent of the forest products. <br /> <br />i E. Detennination of P055ible Sale Quantitie5 <br />i <br />,I <br />I I and Stratification <br /> <br />FORPLAN Version 2 is being used to model timber harvesting for the No-Action Alternative. The <br />model will assist the Forest in determining timber sale quantities, scheduling, and alloc'ltion. <br /> <br />The model uses six strata, or groupings, to describe the forest. The six groups used are: geographic <br />areas, scenic quality categories, roadlessand roaded conditions, forested cover types, timber strata, <br />and management-area designation. <br /> <br />Using these six groups created over 3,000 different analysis areas. These analysis areas contain both <br />suitable and nonsuitable forested lands. The model contains both types of forested lands so that the <br />model can simulate vegetation structural stages for entire areas. <br /> <br />U6B of Standard6 and Guidt'JIil1t':6 <br /> <br />Two different formulations of a FORPLAN model were compiled. One formulation is a representation <br />of the 1985 Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The other formulation represents the newly <br />adopted standards and guidelines to be used in the Plan Revision. <br /> <br />The primary differences in the two formulations are: the increased emphasis in uneven-aged <br />management, the use of Scenic Condition Objectives, the use of RNV to describe forest conditions, <br />and the change in allowable uses within certain management area designations which changes the <br />timber allocations. <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />Rt'l6ulte <br /> <br />Four FORPLAN models or runs were made in order to analyze the No-Action Alternative. The results <br />of each model are summarized in Table 11I-9. <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />11I-36 <br /> <br />e~2449 <br />