Federal law doesn’t mandate minimum amounts of logging in Alaska’s Tongass rainforest, judge says
- Alaska Beacon
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
Judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Alaska Forest Association, Alcan Timber and Viking Lumber to mandate more timber sales
By James Brooks
Alaska Beacon
A federal judge in Alaska has rejected a lawsuit that sought to reinstate a management plan that would allow heavier logging in the world’s largest temperate old-growth rainforest.
The result leaves an Obama-era management plan in place, but it could be short-lived: The administration of President Donald Trump is already at work on a new plan that could allow more logging in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.
In an order published Friday, Judge Sharon Gleason dismissed the lawsuit filed by Viking Lumber, Alcan Timber and the Alaska Forest Association.
The three groups sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture — the parent organization of the U.S. Forest Service — last year, alleging in part that the federal Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 required the Forest Service to offer enough timber sales to meet market demand.
Gleason ruled otherwise, finding that TTRA does not impose “a mandatory duty” on the Forest Service to ensure that market demand is met by Tongass timber sales.
“Whether the harvest levels are designed to actually meet market demand is a discretionary agency action, not a mandatory requirement imposed by the TTRA on the Forest Service,” she wrote.
Gleason also declined to take up plaintiffs’ argument about whether the Forest Service violated the Administrative Procedures Act, and she ruled that a 2021 announcement about Tongass strategy did not amount to formal rulemaking under law. She did not analyze whether it would have met legal standards if it had been a formal rulemaking process.
Plaintiffs were represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, which on Friday said that the Forest Service’s approach has been devastating to plaintiffs.
Kyle Griesinger, a spokesperson for the foundation, said that even with a new management plan in the works, the case isn’t moot because the old plan remains in effect until superceded.
“And, moreover, the Forest Service has not lived up to the 2016 plan so any new plan they may not live up to is no guarantee for our clients,” he said.
Marlee Goska, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, agreed that last week’s ruling still has merit.
Goska was one of several attorneys who represented tribal, tourism, fishing and environmental groups that intervened on the side of the Department of Agriculture.
“I don’t think we have enough information yet to say the Forest Service is going to implement what the plaintiffs want. And certainly we’ll fight tooth and nail to stop that from happening,” she said of the upcoming plan change.
Goska added that last week’s ruling is important because it shows that the Forest Service does not have to meet market demand under existing law, and it shows that federal law doesn’t draw a distinction between old-growth harvests and new-growth ones.
“To the extent this administration and the Forest Service might be thinking about saying the TTRA mandates large old-growth timber sales to meet market demand, the court has already said that is incorrect,” she said.
Gleason published a final judgment on Friday. Plaintiffs have 30 days to file an appeal.
• James Brooks Cascade is a longtime Alaska reporter who lives in Juneau. He previously worked at the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Kodiak Mirror and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
