the article is very misleading. logging is not permitted by law under any circumstances in National Parks or designated Wilderness areas on National Forests, nor in designated roadless areas and is not being proposed by anyone (except perhaps teabagger congressman McClintock)
so therefore the biological integrity of devastated forested areas is already going to be kept intact on most of the Rim Fire, making the whole conference is a bit overdone.
there are some small portions that burned in roaded areas that have been previously entered on National Forest (known as matrix land) and are designated for multiple uses such as timber production, cattle grazing, and specialized wildlife habitats, where salvage of dead trees has been considered the best use by prior Forest Planning. Actually, snag loving critters have more habitat there now than they will be able to utilize, as the fire burned very hot and is not a mosaic of burnt and green areas over a large area.
While the conference was a good excuse for a get-together in reno, the truth is, as i found over the course of a career of doing fire salvage and reforestation projects after fire season was over, is that just one appeal by someone with a stamped envelope delays the projects enough that the timber value is lost, as the burned trees, no matter how large, dry out and check within a year or two and so even if the appeal is overturned, that side wins anyway because the salvage of dead trees is then uneconomical.
I just had to point out that only a small portion of the area is actually in play, and in places not reserved for other uses (such as national parks and wilderness areas) salvaging burned, dead timber is much more ecologically neutral than cutting mature green forest. (the demand for lumber just gets displaced to other areas that are still intact systems)