SOS Forests

Sec 2 needs a sub section 8 discussing
“minimizes net cost per acre using cost-plus-loss accounting”

Biological products is clever. Me like.

Sec 5 b 1 C ii:
Me think this too strong a prohibition, although the reality is probably that this would be insignificant overall to the program. If there was a way to deal with “imminently decadent” or some such…the Sugarloaf project comes to mind inasmuch as the biggies were competing with each other as well as the seral successors.

Sec 5 F. There needs to be language here around lowest-cost-plus-loss in order to maximize the number of acres effectively treated and protected. Putting it later in the document doesn’t work in the context of 100 projects. They won’t happen unless cost-loss is in the front of the law and everyone’s head when making proposals.

Last of all, the EIS NEPA requirement needs to be changed into something that exempts from litigation and/or requires bonding notwithstanding EAJA.

Have a nice day.

There should also be an insertion that addresses the concept of setting conditions for the establishment of the physical attributes of OG. For example, on the Colville, they grow pumpkins from 80 to 120 and swat them then, because from 120 to 240 there’s little addition to the wood and the animals that select for attributes can’t tell.

Great. Points are good. Will consider.

I don’t mean to be rude about it, Grumpster, but it might have been helpful if you had participated in the Forum discussion wherein we have been fine-tuning the amendments to S.2593 for weeks now.

I have gone to great effort (and expense) to give you a place to participate in a hands-on fashion. It might be cool if you were to take advantage of that.

But your points are good and will be considered. Thank you.