Prevent fires through more logging?
.webp)
But critics argue the measures are a
thinly-veiled attempt by the timber industry to increase logging on public
lands for private profit.
At the center of the controversy is the
“Forestry and Forest Parity Act” (2024 H 7618), sponsored by Representative
Megan Cotter. The bill would provide significant tax breaks for commercial
logging operations, remove zoning restrictions on where they can take place,
and formally declare timber harvesting a “permitted use” in essentially all
areas of the state.
“We need to adapt to our changing climate
with a new and more vigorous approach to forest management,” Cotter wrote in a
recent op-ed for RI News Today. “That means we must work as partners with
landowners, helping them safely manage the risks of fires, for their benefit
and the safety of the public.”
But Nathan Cornell, President of the Old Growth Tree Society, sees the legislation very differently. In a letter sent to media outlets, he alleges H 7618 is designed to “make it more profitable to the timber industry to clearcut log forests on state land as well as clearcut forests for solar and residential developments.”
The dispute highlights the difficult
tradeoffs between environmental conservation and economic activity. Forests
play a vital role removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, filtering
groundwater, and mitigating urban heat islands. But they also represent a
valuable commercial resource if harvested judiciously.
According to Cotter’s op-ed, “Fifty-four
percent of Rhode Island is forested, which is impressive considering it’s the
second-most densely populated state in the nation.” She argues more active
management is needed as climate change brings hotter, drier conditions that
increase wildfire risk.
Cornell, however, claims reports from the
U.S. Forest Service show that logging operations can exacerbate fire hazards by
leaving behind flammable debris known as “slash.” He cites a project underway
by the state’s Department of Environmental Management to thin forests in the
Arcadia Management Area, arguing it is being “disguised” as fire mitigation.
The debate extends beyond H 7618 to several
related pieces of legislation making their way through the General Assembly.
Cotter is also sponsoring a bill (H 7550) to allocate $3 million from the
state’s Green Bond fund for “forest and habitat management” – which critics say
is code for logging.
Another Cotter-sponsored measure (H 7258)
would add 10 new staff positions to DEM’s Division of Forestry. Cornell alleges
the real purpose is to ramp up timber harvesting in state forests and other
public woodlands.
Cotter portrayed the forestry bills as
being about responsible environmental stewardship in her op-ed. She touted the
creation of a new House commission she chairs “to determine the best action for
improving forest management” by bringing together “experts and stakeholders.”
But Cornell questions the commission’s
objectivity, noting that Cotter and the Republican House Minority Leader
Michael Chippendale – who co-sponsored H 7618 – are the only two legislators
appointed to it. He suggests they have a vested interest in promoting policies
that boost Rhode Island’s logging industry.
The heated rhetoric from both sides
underscores the complexity of the issue. Prolonged drought, rising
temperatures, and an increased frequency of extreme weather have turned Rhode
Island’s forests into a tinderbox during summer months. The state has already
experienced several major wildfires in the past year, including one that
scorched 350 acres in Exeter.
In that context, calls for better forest
management carry significant weight. But what, precisely, that should entail is
where the battle lines have been drawn between environmental advocates and
commercial interests. The forestry debate seems likely to intensify as the
legislation works its way through the State House in the months ahead.
