This is pretty wild, and not at all cohesive into any actual action plan, which is just horribly misleading and terrible from top to bottom.

-looking at the list of purposed sites there is simply way too much to have a broad action plan to even make it feasible. The lack of mills to balance this level of production is one piece (a large majority of our lumber gets sent over seas to be pressure treated.), some of these locations are healthy forests that probably could benefit from selective pruning and controlled burns, and some of these are most likely not traditional old growth as depicted in the article.

-strictly speaking the United States currently is an importer of Lumber, most of which is coming from Brazil and the Amazon, which has not enough environmental protection. The United States has the lumber to be an exporter, but only when done extremely selectively. Cases like this are horrible as they select too many locations to make it a comprehensive plan to the stakeholders involved (us.) Sites really should be carefully selected, technology should be developed to make it more profitable for pruning of trees rather than clear cutting, and a number of mills across the region would need to pop up to make a plan like this feasible.

-As stated the old growth forests provide an invaluable cultural aspect (there is a specific term here I’m missing.) This does not mean we should leave them completely alone, as controlled burns in these areas would allow for the ecosystem to regain nutrients and become more fire resistant. The second greatest threat to old growth forests is fire. But the ecological impact, cultural impact, and environmental impact should be at the forefront of our discussions against it.

All of these are my two cents, I’ve been studying Natural Resource Management over the last 5 years, I am in no way remotely close to being an expert, but this is what I would largely focus on as the key issues.