Replies

Anyone who has lived in Idaho County, Idaho, worked in the forest products industry, and enjoyed the rare recreational opportunities this county has to offer for most of their lives would have trouble finding anything that the federal government does managing federal forests in Idaho County, Idaho, that couldn't be done better by individual residents or local businesses. Anything the U.S. Forest Service does is going to cost the taxpayers so much to accomplish so little, most of the country will resent county residents.

In order to provide economies of scale and proper thoroughness of cleanup efforts, large tracts need to be logged so removal of wood fiber that could serve no other purpose than fueling boilers can be made practical. A typical restoration effort in Idaho County should cover about 20 sq. miles, be done by helicopters where terrain prohibits use of processors, remove usable fuel and fiber, leave 40 to 50 sturdy young trees per acre, and use cheap temporary haul roads built for ease of removal. I think economies of scale can best be achieved if qualified forest managers were to operate large tracts around 60 sq. miles in size in a manner similar to family farms. This would break the 1.1 million acres of Nez Perce National Forest land in Idaho County outside designated wildnerness areas into about 30 privately managed tracts. Early returns on thinning operations can be used to hire rehab crews for areas previously damaged by fire or poor logging practices.

I would like to see federal courts recognize the rights of local residents to claim that the smoke coming from federally managed forest land be considered pollution and the county government should be able to regulate potential sources of ozone destroying wood smoke if the federal government is not going to act. If the federal government refuses to make these cleanup efforts practical, thorough, and efficient through economies of scale, our local government should be able to require such policies to assure the job is done right and without unneccessary burden on our fellow Americans. I would hope that the federal courts would see the wisdom of managing the source of ozone destroying wood smoke and the neccessity of economies of scale for a thorough cleanup. I would hope that federal judges would require those who oppose policies we think would produce an efficient, thorough cleanup should be required to file environmental impact statements showing the impact burning these forests would have on our eyes, throats, and lungs.

In order to provide economies of scale and proper thoroughness of cleanup efforts, large tracts need to be logged so removal of wood fiber that could serve no other purpose than fueling boilers can be made practical.

There are now portable boilers and generating equipment that are pretty clean so I don't know whether your minimum economies of scale apply elsewhere, especially where the uses can interlace with others. Forester has run the numbers on this type of power generation in Siskiyou County, CA. Maybe you two should talk.

I would like to see federal courts recognize the rights of local residents to claim that the smoke coming from federally managed forest land be considered pollution and the county government should be able to regulate potential sources of ozone destroying wood smoke if the federal government is not going to act.

Well, certainly we should compare the pollution from controlled burns to catastrophic fires. We should also note that the outgassing of terpenes from the trees does produce ozone. Then there are the mold spores from rotting wood that do act as allergens and potential causes of asthma.

Complex isn't it? Sounds like it needs management, doesn't it? If they're botching it who should do it? Do you have proof you can do a better job? Do you have standing by which to bring such an action?

Maybe you should read my book.

I would hope that the federal courts would see the wisdom of managing the source of ozone destroying wood smoke and the neccessity of economies of scale for a thorough cleanup. I would hope that federal judges would require those who oppose policies we think would produce an efficient, thorough cleanup should be required to file environmental impact statements showing the impact burning these forests would have on our eyes, throats, and lungs.

You can't do it if you don't have that proof, the standing, and the infrastructure. The system I propose builds all three.

I think economies of scale can best be achieved if qualified forest managers were to operate large tracts around 60 sq. miles in size in a manner similar to family farms. This would break the 1.1 million acres of Nez Perce National Forest land in Idaho County outside designated wildnerness areas into about 30 privately managed tracts. Early returns on thinning operations can be used to hire rehab crews for areas previously damaged by fire or poor logging practices.

Sorry for my delay in answering, I have been camped out at the work site lately. I like yoswif's concept of busting the local NF into privately managed tracts. Personally, I would make them smaller so that families could operate them....maybe 7 to 10 square miles. I would not like to see bureacratic mismanagement replaced by corporate mismanagement...I like mom and pop operations.