Destructive “Clearcuts for Christmas” Logging Rider Defeated

On December 7, I wrote in Earth Island Journal about a destructive logging bill that Congressional Republicans, and a few misguided Democrats, were trying to attach as a “rider” to the must-pass Omnibus appropriations bill, expected to pass this week. The bill’s proponents cynically used fear and misunderstanding about wildland fires to propose eliminating environmental analysis for most logging projects on federal lands and dramatically curtailing public participation in federal forest management decisions. This would have led to an enormous increase in destructive logging, including huge clearcuts, on our public forests.

Photo by Chad Hanson An intact, unlogged snag forest habitat thrives 12 years years after a fire.

Fortunately, due in large part to countless calls to Senators from grassroots environmental activists and scientists across the nation who strongly opposed the logging rider, and courageous and principled leadership against the logging bill by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Congressional negotiators finally decided to drop the “Clearcuts for Christmas” logging rider on December 16. This dealt a significant blow to the timber industry, which thought it had the logging deal wrapped up through closed-door sessions and back-room deals, and represents a huge victory for our national forests and other federal public forests, and the many imperiled wildlife species that depend upon these lands.

The defeat of the rider was hard-won. In a last-minute ruse earlier this week, the timber industry, along with Robert Bonnie, the undersecretary for natural resources and environment at the USDA and the Obama Administration’s point person on National Forest issues, attempted to mislead the public by pointing to some hollow “safeguards” that their Congressional allies had inserted into the logging rider. These included a requirement that the timber industry comply with existing forest plans, participate in “collaborative groups” on forest management, ensure retention of large trees, and observe restrictions against creating new logging roads.

Fortunately, some Democrats in Congress saw through this smokescreen of supposed safeguards. For example, forest plans are generally weak, and most already allow clearcutting of mature forest, post-fire removal of ecologically-vital “snag forest habitat” created by mixed-intensity fire, and other destructive logging practices — compliance with these plans provides little protection for forested land. Collaborative groups are typically dominated by local timber interests, and environmental groups and scientists who do not live in or near the logging towns where meetings are held, and who cannot regularly travel long distances to attend meetings, tend to be excluded. The “large tree” retention provision in the rider was unenforceable and meaningless, and did not even apply to the clearcutting provisions. And the no-new-roads standard was equally hollow — the rider allowed federal agencies to create “temporary” roads to facilitate clearcutting, and then simply close the roads after logging to get around the supposed restriction.

Photo by Chad Hanson Clearcutting on the Stanislaus National Forest after the Rim fire left behind barren stumpfields.

Another provision in the logging rider provided an additional end-run around environmental review, allowing clearcut logging projects of up to 250 acres to be executed without environmental analysis. This provision included another “safeguard” that would supposedly mitigate the impact of the clearcuts, stating that such projects must be broken up into at least two individual clearcuts per 250-acre timber sale. In other words, the logging rider allowed individual clearcuts larger than the combined size of more than 100 football fields on our national forests, without analysis of the impacts on the environment. These clearcuts would wipe out wild, biodiverse, natural forests and leave behind giant, barren stumpfields. This doesn’t sound like much of an environmental “safeguard.”

It is particularly troubling that the Obama Administration, which early on promised to reverse the Bush Administration’s anti-science policies and to uphold scientific integrity, yielded to logging industry pressure and promoted such a regressive, unscientific logging rider, ignoring the advice of over 260 scientists nationwide.

The defeat of the logging rider in Congress this December is a testament not just to the importance of sound science, but also to the power of grassroots organizing in galvanizing courageous action in some members of Congress, and holding others accountable. Americans want their national forests protected as wild, natural ecosystems that promote biodiversity and support recreation, not intensively logged and turned into stumpfields. No one but the timber industry wants Clearcuts for Christmas.

Though the logging rider is dead for now, and the Grinches in Congress did not get their way this holiday season, the timber industry’s allies in Congress have already vowed to push for a similar logging bill again early next year. This threat to forests will rear its ugly head once again if citizens do not voice their objections to increased logging on federal forestlands.

WHAT YOU CAN DO: If you are in California, please call Senator Dianne Feinstein (202-224-3841) and ask her why she did not oppose the logging rider. If you are in Oregon, please call Senator Ron Wyden (202-224-5244) and express your disapproval at his support for the bill. Otherwise, please call your US senators and tell them to oppose any bills that would increase logging on national forests and federal lands. Finally, please call the White House (202-456-6213) and let President Obama know that you are outraged that his administration would support the Clearcuts for Christmas logging rider.