"In the interview, Boxer also promised to end Bush administration rollbacks on environmental rules if they are not supported by science."

Now, in many environmental issues, this is a very good thing. Unfortunately, there's plenty of dissension over which "science" she will base her actions on.

For example, there's a bill going to the Senate that would streamline salvage and restoration efforts where fires have burned (as well as other disasters like ice storms and hurricanes). Will she go with the "junky" science put forth by Daniel Donato, or will she side with a non-partisan Forest Service? Remember, now, that not all of the Donato study was published in Science Magazine. Somehow, the fact that all of Donato's study plots met established stocking levels after the logging was completed. Hmmmmmmmm! Remember, also, that this bill has bi-partisan support all across the country, too.

Boxer consistently ignores rural voters who live in areas threatened by wildfires EVERY year. The truth is that a lack of restoration in a forest fire dooms that piece of ground to burn again, instead of locking away that massive buildup of non-living carbon. Boxer even discounts the famous Quincy Library Group, which her senatorial partner, Dianne Feinstein sponsors. I'd like to see the list of her preservationists campaign contributors. Hmmmmmm, again!

Another prediction from me is that we'll see a return of gridlock to the restoration of our National Forests.

Don't get me wrong, though. We sorely need a counterbalance in many areas of environmental protection, especially in the energy industry.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Pres...

I'd be curious of what you think.

First of all, no live trees with ANY green needles were cut, except in the case of safety. That means that a tree with only one green limb that was going to die in 3 months couldn't be cut. New studies by the esteemed Sherrie Smith weren't complete before the Biscuit project was started. Her new guidelines, based of the very latest studies, gives us new fire mortality guidelines that surely would have boosted apparent profits.

Second of all, the current salvage process is so cumbersome that a sea of smaller trees could have been utilized, along with the big honkers, had the Forest Service acted more quickly. Granted, there were many internal delays, as well, that pushed back logging, still ongoing as of this fall. Remember, this fire burned way back in 2002.

The anticipated footdragging by eco-groups forces us to do increased analysis, in order to win expected lawsuits. This also causes delays in how we do salvage projects. The sheer size of the Biscuit, it's incredible diversity, and the ruggedness of the terrain also makes for some slow going (I did work for 21 days there on slopes as steep as 120%). All of that had to be analyzed and prepared before it could be sold.

On the other hand, my last fire salvage project, a mere 15,000 acres, was prepared and sold within one year after the fire went out. The project did include the new mortality guidelines and the terrain, although not nearly as rugged as the Biscuit, required plenty of helicopter units. Although the project survived a court battle in the 8th Circuit court, a single husband and wife team calling itself the Earth Island Institute appealed it to the very liberal 9th Circuit court and won, stopping us from cutting ANY dead trees, including roadside hazard trees.

The biggest weapon that the eco-groups have against salvage projects is to delay and appeal until the wood is rotten enough to make it unusable. The worst part of this is that the smaller diameter (and most flammable of the trees) gets left out in the woods while the big trees still get removed. All and all, the ecological benefits of salvage logging is to remove excess fuels and get erosion-stalling fine material on the ground.

This footdragging until the trees are unmerchantable is precisely what the new salvage bill wants to stop. The new salvage bill would require immediate action in the form of a plan that will be ready for public perusal in 30 days. Of course, the public can still comment on the plans but appeals are not allowed. The courts will now become the avenue in which the public can exercise their rights to disagree. The ld appeal process was merely a part of the stalling tactics so treasured by the eco-groups.

My last project was stopped by the court over a few minor details. Since the mortality guidelines were "confusing", they were also deemed to be "deceiving". Not that they were scientifically wrong, mind you. The other sticking point was the lack of monitoring of threatened and endangered birds. Should we be required to do intensive bird surveys, as required for green timber sales, within the entire fire perimeter?

Fire salvage projects are not just for recovering wood from dead trees. Is it OK to stop cutting dead trees in this country, only to cut more in other countries to sate our appetite for wood and paper products? Sounds like the dreaded NIMBYism to me!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

My Mom does occasionally drag me off to church, though.

BTW, the Biscuit is a tremendously diverse place, ruggedly dramatic and forebodingly ancient in an ever-changing landscape of churning geology. Yes, the Forest Service made many mistakes on that project, many of them due to the downsizing of the 80's and 90's. The Forest Service too seems to be ever-changing, as well.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com