GAO blames Bush administration for high cost of Biscuit timber salvage

The Log Days of Bummer

The Bush administration, not environmental lawsuits, is to blame for the nearly $11 million cost of a logging project that will salvage only $8.8 million worth of timber, says a new study from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. After the 2002 Biscuit fire burned almost 500,000 acres in Oregon and California, the U.S. Forest Service overestimated the amount of timber available and the number of jobs that would be created by logging it, says the GAO. "Taxpayers are going to have to spend millions more just cleaning up the damage from the logging than the government made from the timber sales," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). "At the same time, promises of community fire protection, habitat restoration, and scientific analyses remain unscheduled and unfulfilled." Republicans responded by doubling down, promoting legislation by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) that would speed up logging after storms and wildfires. 'Cause that seems to be working out pretty well.

straight to the source: The News-Review, Associated Press, 05 Oct 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (4 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Imagine Biscuit Fire Restoration without logging

Imagine a project without the logging aspect and total up all the costs associated with such a project.

Certainly there would have been a roadside hazard tree removal project and an associated fuels reduction project to deal with the slash from felled (but not removed) trees. There would also be an extensive fuels reduction project in areas away from roads that would involve machine piling and burning. There would also be planting costs in areas that didn't have good natural regeneration. This would cost millions of dollars without the offsetting monies from KV Funds generated from the timber sales.

Or, imagine if nothing at all were done to the Biscuit. How much would it cost the ecosystem to have roads catastrophically fail when culverts become plugged? How much would it cost the ecosystem when jack-strawed, log-choked lands burn up the precious natural regeneration?? How much would it cost the ecosystem when the brush comes up and chokes off that very same natural regeneration??

Finally, how much more money would have been generated had the salvage sales been planned and prepared in the most timely fashion (including both eco-footdragging and litigation AND Forest Service ineptitude)?? How come the American public and Congress aren't doing something about Baird's Salvage and Restoration Bill in Congress?!? After a new all-time record in acres burned, no one seems to care that our forests are becoming "natural clearcuts". BTW, that's 14,218 square miles burned just THIS year, alone!!!

How many more will be charred before we all look at the big picture, including climate change and carbon sequestration. If you won't listen to me, then listen to Patrick Moore, of Greenpeace fame.

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

by Backcut at 4:00 PM on 06 Oct 2006

Explosion at hazmat plant threatens North Carolina

Where is CAMEO now that we need it? Twenty years ago (+/-) EPA sponsored an emergency response software package that enabled assistance with just such a scenario; is CAMEO still in use?

|-|-|--|---|-----|--------|-------------|... (The fibber's notchy pipe line.) When did the Age of Aquarius become the Age of Acquire-us?

by jimhadden at 3:07 AM on 08 Oct 2006

Backcut

I have always thought that a properly done logging operation was preferable to a forest fire in most cases. Maybe these fires will help foresters and enviors to find some common ground. One loses profits, the other forests.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 8:55 AM on 08 Oct 2006

Toxin or Toxic?

Oops.

"...is laced with chlorine gas and possibly pesticides and other toxins."

This issue of toxin or toxic keeps rearing its if not ugly, frequent head amongst us journalists.

Here's the scoop:

Toxins are biological poisons, such as as VOCs produced by dangerous fungi emissions, bee or snake venom, or the blistering agents produced by some insects. A toxin is never an inorganic compound. It is never a synthetic chemical such as chlorine gasses or pesticides.

Toxic equals poison or at best, harmful. The correct noun form is "toxicant," and some journalists stick with that because it's accurate. The EPA, on the other hand, refers to synthetic "cides": pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, ad nauseam for the graceless term "toxics"--acknowledging they are not toxins but are toxic, or poisonous. One editor noted it's shorthand for the more accurate but boring mouthful: toxic substances.

Hey Grist, all your stories are outstanding, just shining the light on one little misstep.

by THANSEN at 1:41 PM on 09 Oct 2006

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?