Oregon State University researcher carries water for timber industry lobbyists
James Johnston and the American Forest Resource Council are denying science, making environmental problems "far worse."
I was working on an article last year about an Oregon State University assistant professor teaming up with the timber industry lobby in court to defend the Forest Service’s decision to axe protections for large trees in the Pacific Northwest. I intended for the article to be part of a larger series about forest management.
The court ruled against the Forest Service’s decision before I could publish my article. The ruling was no doubt good news but it took the wind out of my sails and I shelved the whole idea about writing a forest management series.
I figured I might as well share the story about the Oregon timber industry’s favorite water carrier as a warning for what we could very well see again very soon.
Logging large trees can boost timber industry profitability. The 21-inch rule, a 1995 Eastside Screens regulation that prevented the timber industry from logging trees with diameters greater than 21 inches at breast height in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington national forests, restricted potential profitability.
In 2021, however, U.S. Forest Service Under Secretary James Hubbard announced that the Forest Service eliminated the Eastside Screens 21-inch rule in favor of looser diameter, age, and species recommendations. The move came after Hubbard called to increase logging in other states like Montana and Wisconsin.
The American Forest Resource Council, a Portland-based timber industry lobbying organization, supported the Forest Service decision but believed it did not go far enough. The organization previously called on the Forest Service to increase timber production and recommended that the Forest Service adopt a management plan without constraints on diameter or age.
Abandoning the 21-inch rule was not popular outside the timber industry. Six conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service to restore protections for large trees.
The legal battle quickly grew as AFRC and the Eastern Oregon Counties Association intervened on behalf of the Forest Service. The Nez Perce Tribe then filed an amicus brief in support of the six conservation groups.
Some defend the Forest Services’ decision
The court case took a turn when James Johnston, an Oregon State University assistant professor, filed an amicus brief supporting the Forest Service. The amicus brief included a letter that Johnston and 14 other forest ecologists signed that contended the six conservation groups’ arguments “are designed to give the impression of scientific controversy where no meaningful controversy among scientists exists.”
Many non-industry ecologists disagree with the sentiments in Johnston’s letter. More than 100 independent scientists signed an open letter to the Forest Service in 2020 that argued, “removing protections for large trees is highly controversial from a scientific perspective.”
“There is scientific controversy regarding the removal of large old trees and forests preemptively before fire burns,” says an experienced ecologist that wishes to remain anonymous. “[L]ess than 1% of thinned areas experienced fire annually. The USFS and its supporting consultant are promoting cutting of large old trees in the name of “restoration,” yet in the six eastside national forests, […] the largest 3% of trees on inventory plots account for 42% of the biomass carbon.”
“Only a very small percent - 8% - of all the plots have the large-tree co-occurrence of ponderosa pine and grand fir that is their primary reason for doing away with the protections for big trees. The fact that 92% of the forested landscape does not fit their rationale to open up the entire landscape to large tree logging is a key part of the scientific controversy,” adds the anonymous ecologist.
Johnston was the lead author of a paper that showed diameter limits on logging hindered forest restoration in eastern Oregon. The research was funded by the Forest Service and Blue Mountains Forest Partners, a forest collaborative operated by and for private timber industry interests.
More than half of BFMP’s Board Members, including their President, have direct ties to the timber industry. The collaborative’s Executive Director said BFMP “staked extensive political capital on the validity of an alternative approach” to the 21-inch rule in a letter to the Ochoco National Forest’s Forest Supervisor.
Johnston says that all of his papers “are robust and objective,” given that they went through peer review.
He believes that the large trees likely to be logged as a result of the 21-inch rule’s amendments “have little value to most timber operators” and that “the most highly valued trees [in eastern Oregon] are smaller ponderosa pine.” However, the owner of Rude Logging, an AFRC member, mentioned in an article that sturdy pines over 21 inches are more valuable than smaller pines when discussing the benefits of the Forest Service’s decision to eliminate the 21-inch rule.
Johnston also consulted for the Forest Service during the 21-inch rule amendment process.
“It’s my job to provide information to land managers, members of the general public,” says Johnston. “[The] Forest Service asked me for information about their revision, and I provided them information upon request just as I do for anyone and everyone that asks me, including conservation groups.”
A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that a Forest Service Special Project Coordinator emailed Johnston about payment for his consultation work. The Special Project Coordinator asked him to send them an invoice and said the Forest Service set aside $2,500.
Johnston says that he cannot find that email and that he has no recollection of reading it. “I never invoiced the Forest Service. I’m unaware that they set any money aside for me. They didn’t pay me any money,” adds Johnston.
Timber industry representation
Forest Service interveners AFRC noted that Johnston filing an amicus brief was peculiar. “Participation from scientists in cases like these is uncommon, which signals that the 15 forest ecologists felt strongly that the court should be provided with an accurate portrayal of the state of the science,” stated an AFRC newsletter.
Two attorneys from Northwest Resource Law PLLC, an AFRC member with a history of representing timber industry interests, represented Johnston in his amicus brief. Johnston declined to comment on his choice of legal representation, citing the ongoing court case. However, he ignored requests for comment after the case ended.
One of Johnston’s Northwest Resource Law attorneys participated in a legal presentation at AFRC’s 2021 annual meeting. The presentation explained how AFRC develops legal precedent, defends timber volume, and defends its members.
The attorney advocated on behalf of AFRC in a court case that AFRC intervened to protect the Washington Department of Natural Resources’ fiduciary duty to manage forests. The attorney also represented AFRC in a legal battle where AFRC’s members faced “substantial financial harm, including lost revenues, lost profits, and in some cases the loss of a business” due to the expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.
The removal of the 21-inch rule had similar financial implications for AFRC members. “If there is a commercial component to projects developed pursuant to the Eastside Screens Amendment, it is likely that the timber will either be purchased by an AFRC member or processed at an AFRC member mill, given about 75% of the volume currently under contract on these six forests is with AFRC members,” noted AFRC’s motion to intervene.
A history of science denial and attacks
The George W. Bush administration paved the way for rolling back timber industry regulations in the name of profitability. Mark Rey, a veteran timber industry lobbyist that President Bush appointed to lead the Forest Service in 2001, argued that the timber industry should be allowed to log larger trees to offset logging smaller, unprofitable trees.
A 2002 AFRC prepared statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources argued for timber industry deregulation to improve forest health. The 21-inch rule impeded AFRC’s vision of restoring healthy forests.
“There must be recognition that scientific forest management cannot be arbitrarily limited,” noted the prepared statement. “One specific example here is the arbitrary 21-inch diameter limit in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington. Such one-size-fits-all, top-down prescriptive direction does more harm than good in the long run.”
The Beschta Report, a scientific report that detailed the negative consequences of post-fire timber salvaging, was also targeted. AFRC’s prepared statement asked, “Is it truly science just because a scientist wrote it or is it just his opinion shared by others?”
U.S. Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, legislation that prioritized logging in the name of wildfire fuel reduction, in 2003. Project Protect, an astroturfing campaign that shared AFRC’s address, was credited with building support for the legislation.
Timber industry groups cast doubt on damaging scientific evidence multiple times since the passing of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
An AFRC lobbyist advised Oregon Forest Resources Institute, a taxpayer-funded organization supporting timber industry interests, on how best to discredit scientists and their research that concluded the 2013 Douglas Complex Fire burned more severely on private timber lands than on public forests. OFRI also conducted a smear campaign to attempt to discredit research that showed the timber industry was Oregon’s worst carbon polluter.
Johnston should stand in solidarity with his colleagues against industry attacks. But his friendliness with industry lobbyists affords him job security, an importance for a non-tenured academic.
We’ll suffer the consequences though.
“The science that industry relies on does not fully account for the carbon losses to the atmosphere associated with management actions. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and denying the science will only make the problems we face far worse,” states the anonymous ecologist.
Greetings Jared. When is your next article out?