Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan Amendment

Final Environmental Impact Statement

June 2016

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agency: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible Official: M. Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 

Tongass National Forest

For Further Information: Visit the Forest Web site at: www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass

or Contact:

Susan Howle

Project Team Leader

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

(907) 228-6340

Abstract

Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast 

Alaska (issued July 2, 2013), and the 5-Year Forest Plan Review (completed in 

September 2013) indicated that conditions on the land and demands of the public require 

the Tongass to modify the 2008 Forest Plan. In the Memorandum, the Secretary of 

Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, asked the Forest Service to “Strongly consider whether to 

pursue an amendment to the Tongass Forest Plan. Such an amendment would evaluate 

which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially young growth timber stands, 

which lands should be excluded, and additional opportunities to promote and speed 

transition to young growth management...” and to “...continue to seek input from and 

work with stakeholders in the region towards this transition.” The Tongass Advisory 

Committee (TAC) was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and was 

approved by the Secretary to “...provide advice to the Forest Service on how to expedite 

the transition to young growth management.” The 5-Year Forest Plan Review also 

highlighted a need to make the development of renewable energy resources more 

permissible. 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) responds to the Secretary’s Memo 

and the 5-Year Forest Plan Review by analyzing five alternatives for amending the Plan, 

including the No-Action alternative. A separate document, called the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan), has been published with this FEIS to represent the 

Forest Plan under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5). Alternative 5 is based on the 

Tongass Advisory Committee’s underlying principles, general approach, and 

recommendations. Appendix F displays a side-by-side comparison of the alternatives to 

show how they differ from the preferred alternative. Four key issues are identified: 1) 

transitioning to young-growth-based timber management in 10 to 15 years in an 

ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable manner; 2) promoting the 

development of renewable energy projects where it is compatible with National Forest 

purposes; 3) the effects of potential timber harvest activities in roadless areas; and 4) the 

effects of forest management on wildlife habitat and the Conservation Strategy. The five

alternatives provide a range of options for addressing the issues. Direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the alternatives are compared and disclosed in Chapters 2 and 3, 

based on inventory data and modeling.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all 

bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper
Contents

Final EIS iii Contents

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................1-1

Introduction...............................................................................................................................1-1

Forest Planning History on the Tongass National Forest ........................................................1-2

Factors That Led to the Need for Change ...............................................................................1-4

Roadless area conservation ............................................................................................1-5

Litigation...........................................................................................................................1-5

Collaboration....................................................................................................................1-5

2012 Planning Rule..........................................................................................................1-6

Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan ......................................................................1-7

Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1044-009............................................................1-7

Congressional Action .......................................................................................................1-8

Change Determination .....................................................................................................1-8

Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................1-8

Purpose............................................................................................................................1-8

Need.................................................................................................................................1-8

Forest Location and Description ..............................................................................................1-9

Public Issues ..........................................................................................................................1-11

Public Participation.........................................................................................................1-11

Significant Issues ...................................................................................................................1-13

The Four Significant Issues ...........................................................................................1-13

Issue 1 –Young Growth Transition ..........................................................................1-14

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy ..................................................................................1-14

Issue 3 –Inventoried Roadless Areas......................................................................1-14

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy .......................................1-15

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS......................................................................1-15

Changes between Proposed Forest Plan and Forest Plan....................................................1-16

Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................1-16

Purpose ...................................................................................................................1-16

Relationship to Other Documents ...........................................................................1-16

Plan Organization....................................................................................................1-16

Forest Plan Management Direction.........................................................................1-16

Priority of Direction ..................................................................................................1-16

Forest Location and Description..............................................................................1-17

Chapter 2 – Goals and Objectives.................................................................................1-17

Introduction..............................................................................................................1-17

Forest Desired Conditions.......................................................................................1-17

Ecosystem Services ................................................................................................1-17

Forest-wide Multiple Use Goals and Objectives......................................................1-17

Chapter 3 – Management Prescriptions ........................................................................1-17

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................1-17

Chapter 4 – Standards and Guidelines..........................................................................1-18

Chapter 5 – Plan Content Developed Under the 2012 Planning Rule...........................1-18

Introduction..............................................................................................................1-18

Chapter 6 – Implementation...........................................................................................1-20

Chapter 7 – Glossary .....................................................................................................1-20

Appendices ....................................................................................................................1-20

Appendix A –Timber Resource Land Suitability......................................................1-20

Appendix B – Tongass Advisory Committee Recommendations............................1-20

Appendix C – Watershed Analysis ..........................................................................1-20

Appendix E – Communication Sites ........................................................................1-20

Appendix F – Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas...............................................1-20
Contents

Contents iv Final EIS

Appendix G – Log Transfer Facility Guidelines.......................................................1-21

Appendix H – Karst and Cave Resources...............................................................1-21

Appendix I – ROS Class Standards and Guidelines ...............................................1-21

Appendix J – Special Land Designations or Classifications....................................1-21

Appendix K – Old-growth Habitat Reserve Modification Procedures......................1-21

Appendix L – Special Interest Areas and Experimental Forests.............................1-21

Organization of the Document ...............................................................................................1-21

Organization of EIS and Associated Documents...........................................................1-21

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................................2-1

Introduction...............................................................................................................................2-1

Alternative Development Process............................................................................................2-1

What a Forest Plan Includes............................................................................................2-1

How Alternatives are Described.......................................................................................2-2

Land Use Designations....................................................................................................2-2

How the 2012 Planning Rule applies...............................................................................2-2

Future Project Consistency with the Amended Plan........................................................2-3

Alternative Development..................................................................................................2-4

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study............................................................................2-5

Develop an Amendment using the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions ................................2-5

Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange....................................................................2-5

State of Alaska Alternative...............................................................................................2-5

Immediate End to Old-growth Logging ............................................................................2-6

Transition to Limited Young-Growth Logging in Five Years ............................................2-7

Alternatives Considered in Detail.............................................................................................2-8

Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................................................2-10

Framework and Expected Outputs..........................................................................2-10

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-12

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-12

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-13

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) .....................................................................................2-15

Framework and Expected Outputs..........................................................................2-15

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-16

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-17

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-17

Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................2-21

Framework and Expected Outcomes ......................................................................2-21

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-22

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-23

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-23

Alternative 4 ...................................................................................................................2-27

Framework and Expected Outcomes ......................................................................2-27

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-28

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-29

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-29

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative)...............................................................................2-33

Framework and Expected Outcomes ......................................................................2-33

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-35

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-35

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-35

Comparison of the Alternatives..............................................................................................2-39

Issue 1 – Young-growth Transition..........................................................................2-39

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy ..................................................................................2-40
Contents

Final EIS v Contents

Issue 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas..................................................................... 2-41

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy ....................................... 2-41

CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENT AND EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

Analyzing Effects.............................................................................................................. 3-1

Cumulative Effects..................................................................................................... 3-3

Geographic Information System Database and Quantification for this EIS .............. 3-5

Land Use Designation Groupings.................................................................................... 3-6

Land Divisions ........................................................................................................... 3-6

Watershed........................................................................................................ 3-7

Geographic Provinces ..................................................................................... 3-7

Biogeographic Provinces................................................................................. 3-7

Ecological Sections and Subsections.............................................................. 3-7

Value Comparison Units.................................................................................. 3-7

Wildlife Analysis Areas .................................................................................... 3-7

General Forest Description.............................................................................................. 3-7

Physical Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-7

Biological Setting....................................................................................................... 3-8

Socioeconomic Setting.............................................................................................. 3-9

Organization of Chapter 3.............................................................................................. 3-10

Physical and Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 3-11

Climate and Air............................................................................................................... 3-11

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-11

Climate........................................................................................................... 3-11

Climate Change ............................................................................................. 3-11

Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 3-16

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-19

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................. 3-19

Cumulative Effects......................................................................................... 3-22

Geology, Karst, and Caves ............................................................................................ 3-27

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-27

Geology.......................................................................................................... 3-27

Karst and Caves ............................................................................................ 3-28

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-33

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................. 3-33

Cumulative Effects......................................................................................... 3-35

Soils ............................................................................................................................... 3-37

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-37

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-41

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................. 3-41

Cumulative Effects......................................................................................... 3-48

Mitigation........................................................................................................ 3-49

Water.............................................................................................................................. 3-51

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-51

Water Quantity............................................................................................... 3-51

Water Quality ................................................................................................. 3-54

Watershed Condition ..................................................................................... 3-60

Water Use...................................................................................................... 3-64

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-65

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................. 3-65

Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................3-83

Wetlands ........................................................................................................................ 3-89

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-89

Definition and Regulatory Aspects ................................................................ 3-89
Contents

Contents vi Final EIS

Wetland Mapping, Classification, and Distribution ........................................3-89

Past Wetland Impacts....................................................................................3-91

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................3-92

Direct and Indirect Effects..............................................................................3-92

Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................3-99

Fish ..............................................................................................................................3-103

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-103

Fish Habitat..................................................................................................3-108

Special Status and Invasive Species...........................................................3-118

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-122

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-122

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-137

Plants ...........................................................................................................................3-143

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-143

Plant Communities.......................................................................................3-143

Vegetation Classification .............................................................................3-144

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Rare Plants ................................3-146

Invasive Plants.............................................................................................3-149

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-154

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-154

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-169

Forest Health................................................................................................................3-175

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-175

Current Situation..........................................................................................3-175

Monitoring and Pest Management...............................................................3-178

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-179

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-179

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-180

Biodiversity...................................................................................................................3-183

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-183

Ecosystem Classification.............................................................................3-183

Cover Types ................................................................................................3-187

Overview of Existing Levels of POG Forest on NFS Lands ........................3-195

Landscape Connectivity and Fragmentation ...............................................3-198

Tongass Forest Plan Conservation Strategy...............................................3-200

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-203

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives...............................3-203

Direct and Indirect Effects Specific to Each Alternative ..............................3-208

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-216

Wildlife..........................................................................................................................3-221

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-221

Old-Growth Habitat and the Conservation Strategy ....................................3-221

Landscape Connectivity and Fragmentation ...............................................3-222

Wildlife Species ...........................................................................................3-222

Endemism....................................................................................................3-247

Invasive Species..........................................................................................3-250

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-252

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-252

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-286

Human Uses and Land Management ..................................................................................3-297

Lands Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments..................................................................3-297

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-297

Land Ownership Adjustment........................................................................3-297

Land Use Authorizations..............................................................................3-302

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-304
Contents

Final EIS vii Contents

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-304

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-304

Transportation..............................................................................................................3-307

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-307

Regional Transportation System .................................................................3-307

National Forest System Roads....................................................................3-309

Log Transfer Facilities .................................................................................3-310

Transportation and Utility Systems in the Current Forest Plan ...................3-310

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-311

Direct, Indirect, Effects.................................................................................3-311

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-314

Renewable Energy.......................................................................................................3-315

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-315

Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan...............3-317

Current Trends.............................................................................................3-319

Renewable Energy Resources ....................................................................3-321

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-324

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-324

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-326

Timber..........................................................................................................................3-327

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-327

Introduction ..................................................................................................3-327

Current Condition of the Forest Land Base.................................................3-327

Current Condition of the Timber Resource..................................................3-329

Current Practices .........................................................................................3-333

Tongass Timber Sale Program....................................................................3-340

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-341

Suitable Timber Lands.................................................................................3-342

Silvicultural Systems and Practices.............................................................3-343

Projected Timber Sale Quantity...................................................................3-345

Future Conditions ........................................................................................3-348

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-349

Minerals........................................................................................................................3-351

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-351

Locatable Minerals.......................................................................................3-351

Leasable Minerals........................................................................................3-352

Salable Minerals ..........................................................................................3-353

Mineral Resource Inventory and Development Potential ............................3-353

Tongass Land Management for Minerals....................................................3-354

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-354

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-355

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-356

Recreation and Tourism...............................................................................................3-357

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-357

Supply of Recreation Opportunities.............................................................3-359

Existing Use Levels and Trends ..................................................................3-364

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-374

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-374

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-384

Risk and Uncertainty....................................................................................3-385

Scenery ........................................................................................................................3-387

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-387

Existing Scenic Integrity...............................................................................3-388

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-390

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Forest-wide Effects ..................................3-391

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-415
Contents

Contents viii Final EIS

Subsistence..................................................................................................................3-417

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-417

The Legal Context for Subsistence Use......................................................3-418

Subsistence Users.......................................................................................3-419

Economy......................................................................................................3-420

Subsistence Use Areas ...............................................................................3-424

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-425

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-426

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-430

ANILCA Determination ................................................................................3-431

Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites.........................................................................3-433

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-433

Heritage Resources .....................................................................................3-433

Sacred Sites ................................................................................................3-435

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-436

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-436

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-438

Inventoried Roadless Areas.........................................................................................3-441

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-441

Current Situation..........................................................................................3-441

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-445

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ......................................................3-445

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-447

Wilderness ...................................................................................................................3-449

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-449

Introduction ..................................................................................................3-449

Wilderness Overview...................................................................................3-449

Wilderness in Alaska and the Tongass .......................................................3-451

Relative Contribution of Tongass Wilderness..............................................3-452

Wilderness Management in Alaska .............................................................3-457

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-460

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-460

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-461

Other Special Land Use Designations.........................................................................3-463

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-463

Land Use Designation II Management Areas..............................................3-463

Experimental Forests...................................................................................3-464

Research Natural Areas ..............................................................................3-465

Special Interest Areas..................................................................................3-467

Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................................3-470

Environmental Effects............................................................................................3-473

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-473

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-476

Economic and Social Environment ......................................................................................3-477

Introduction ..................................................................................................................3-477

Regional and National Economy..................................................................................3-478

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-478

Regional Economic Overview......................................................................3-478

Natural Resource-Based Industries.............................................................3-481

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-506

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-506

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-523

Subregional Overview and Communities.............................................................................3-525

Introduction ..................................................................................................................3-525

Subregional Overview..................................................................................................3-525

Population..............................................................................................................3-526
Contents

Final EIS ix Contents

Age ........................................................................................................................3-527

Employment...........................................................................................................3-528

Income and Poverty...............................................................................................3-532

Communities ................................................................................................................3-537

Community Assessments......................................................................................3-538

Analyzing Impacts to Communities .......................................................................3-541

Population and School Enrollment ........................................................................3-541

Energy Generation and Use..................................................................................3-543

Potential Effects by Resource Area.......................................................................3-545

Wood Products ............................................................................................3-545

Renewable Energy ......................................................................................3-545

Recreation and Tourism...............................................................................3-545

Subsistence .................................................................................................3-545

Individual Community Assessments......................................................................3-546

Angoon.........................................................................................................3-546

Coffman Cove..............................................................................................3-551

Craig ............................................................................................................3-556

Edna Bay .....................................................................................................3-561

Elfin Cove.....................................................................................................3-566

Gustavus......................................................................................................3-570

Haines..........................................................................................................3-575

Hollis ............................................................................................................3-581

Hoonah ........................................................................................................3-585

Hydaburg .....................................................................................................3-590

Hyder ...........................................................................................................3-595

Juneau and Vicinity......................................................................................3-598

Kake.............................................................................................................3-602

Kasaan.........................................................................................................3-607

Ketchikan .....................................................................................................3-612

Klawock........................................................................................................3-616

Metlakatla.....................................................................................................3-621

Meyers Chuck..............................................................................................3-626

Naukati Bay .................................................................................................3-628

Pelican .........................................................................................................3-633

Petersburg and Kupreanof...........................................................................3-637

Point Baker ..................................................................................................3-643

Port Alexander.............................................................................................3-648

Port Protection .............................................................................................3-651

Saxman........................................................................................................3-655

Sitka.............................................................................................................3-659

Skagway ......................................................................................................3-664

Tenakee Springs..........................................................................................3-668

Thorne Bay ..................................................................................................3-673

Whale Pass..................................................................................................3-678

Wrangell.......................................................................................................3-683

Yakutat.........................................................................................................3-688

Environmental Justice ...........................................................................................3-693

CHAPTER 4 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................4-1

CHAPTER 5 LIST OF DOCUMENT RECIPIENTS AND THOSE NOTIFIED ...........................................5-1

Federal Agencies .....................................................................................................................5-1

Federal Advisory Committee....................................................................................................5-2

State and Federal Congressional Representatives .................................................................5-3

Alaska Native Tribes and Corporations ...................................................................................5-3

State Agencies .........................................................................................................................5-4

City and Borough Agencies, Libraries, and Schools................................................................5-4
Contents

Contents x Final EIS

Other Organizations .................................................................................................................5-6

Individuals ................................................................................................................................5-8

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................6-1

CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY..........................................................................................................................7-1

CHAPTER 8 INDEX...................................................................................................................................8-1

VOLUME II

APPENDIX A SCOPING AND COMMENT SUMMARY REPORT

APPENDIX B MODELING AND ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

APPENDIX D EVALUATING INTEGRITY OF THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST OLD-GROWTH 

HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGY

APPENDIX E INTERAGENCY OLD GROWTH RESERVE REVIEW

APPENDIX F COMPARISON OF DIRECTION BY ALTERNATIVE

APPENDIX G TIMBER DEMAND AND SUPPLY

APPENDIX H ALASKA LIMITED EXPORT 

APPENDIX I DEIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Contents

Final EIS xi Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model and 

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (MMBF) 2-8

Table 2-2 Key Elements of Alternative 1 2-12

Table 2-3 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 1 2-13

Table 2-4 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 1 2-15

Table 2-5 Key Elements of Alternative 2 2-18

Table 2-6 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 2 2-19

Table 2-7 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 2 2-21

Table 2-8 Key Elements of Alternative 3 2-24

Table 2-9 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 3 2-25

Table 2-10 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 3 2-27

Table 2-11 Key Elements of Alternative 4 2-30

Table 2-12 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 4 2-31

Table 2-13 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 4 2-33

Table 2-14 Key Elements of Alternative 5 2-36

Table 2-15 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 5 2-37

Table 2-16 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 5 2-39

Table 2-17 Comparison of Key Elements of the Alternatives 2-44

Table 2-18 Comparison of Alternatives 2-45

Table 3-1 Land Use Designation Groupings Used to Discuss Effects 3-6

Table 3.1-1 Criteria Pollutants, National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-17

Table 3.2-1 Estimated Maximum Future Tongass Harvest (acres) on Karst Lands under the 

Alternatives after 100 Years 3-34

Table 3.3-1 Estimated Percent of the Productive Forestland on the Tongass by Site Index 

Category 3-38

Table 3.3-2 Estimated Percent of the Tongass National Forest, POG, and Young Growth by 

Slope Category 3-40

Table 3.3-3 Estimated Maximum Cumulative Acreage Covered by Road Surfaces on NFS 

Lands after the first 25 Years and after 100 Years by Alternative 3-44

Table 3.3-4 Estimated Maximum Road Miles to be Constructed or Reconstructed over 25 

Years by Alternative 3-44

Table 3.3-5 Estimated Maximum Increase in Landslide Frequency over the First 25 Years 

of Forest Plan Implementation 3-45

Table 3.3-6 Estimated Maximum Road Density on NFS Lands and Non-NFS Lands after 

100 Years under Existing Conditions and by Alternative 3-49

Table 3.4-1 Mapped Stream Miles by Process Group and Stream Class for Each Ranger 

District Group on NFS Lands 3-53

Table 3.4-2 Percent of Subwatersheds on the Tongass National Forest with Waterbodies 

within 300 Feet of Roads 3-61

Table 3.4-3 Total Riparian Management Area (RMA), Productive Old Growth (POG) in 

RMA, and Past Harvested Areas in RMA by Stream Channel Process Group on 

NFS Lands 3-62

Table 3.4-4 Estimated Maximum Acres of Timber Harvest after 100 Years of Full Forest 

Plan Implementation 3-68

Table 3.4-5 Estimated Harvest (acres) of Young-Growth by All Harvest Methods (e.g., even 

aged, group selection, commercial thin) in Beach Fringe and Riparian 

Management Area (RMA) after 100 Years by Alternative 3-68
Contents

Contents xii Final EIS

Table 3.4-6 Estimated Road Miles and Percent of 6th Field Subwatersheds in Road Density 

Categories on NFS Lands under Existing Conditions and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation 3-70

Table 3.4-7 Estimated Road Construction and Reconstruction (miles) in Beach/Estuary 

Fringe and Riparian Management Area (RMA) after 100 Years by Alternative 3-71

Table 3.4-8 Estimated Maximum Road Miles on Potentially Unstable Soils Based on Slopes 

Greater Than 67 Percent over the Length of the Project (approximately 100 

years) 3-74

Table 3.4-9 Riparian Management Area (RMA) Acres and Past and Future Young-Growth 

Harvest (see note) by Process Group by Alternative 3-80

Table 3.4-10 Percent of Original POG Remaining on All Lands within the Tongass Forest

Boundary and Percent of All Lands inside the Boundary that are Not Directly

Disturbed by Timber Harvest after Full Implementation of the Forest Plan 

(approximately 100+ years) 3-84

Table 3.4-11 Estimated Number of Road Miles on All Lands within the Tongass Forest

Boundary for Each Alternative after Full Implementation of the Forest Plan for 

approximately 100 years 3-85

Table 3.4-12 Estimated Average Total Road Density on Tongass NFS Lands and Non-NFS 

Lands within the Tongass National Forest Boundary by Alternative over 100+ 

years 3-86

Table 3.4-13 Estimated Road Miles and Percent of Watersheds in Road Density Categories 

on NFS Lands and on All Lands Combined within the Tongass National Forest 

Boundary by Alternative after 100+ years of Full Implementation 3-86

Table 3.5-1 Mapped Acres of Wetlands on the Tongass National Forest by Wetland System 

and Class 3-91

Table 3.5-2 Past Acres of Timber Harvest and Existing Miles of Roads in Wetlands on the 

Tongass 3-91

Table 3.5-3 Alternatives that Allow for Harvest in Beach and Estuary Fringe and RMAs 3-97

Table 3.5-4 Maximum Harvest Area in Mapped Wetlands by Alternative after 100+ Years of 

Full Implementation 3-98

Table 3.5-5 Maximum Miles of New Roads in Wetlands by Alternative after 100+ Years 3-98

Table 3.5-6 Estimated Cumulative Percent of each Wetland Category Harvested on All 

Ownerships within the Forest Boundary under each Alternative after 100 Years 3-100

Table 3.5-7 Existing and Estimated Future Maximum Road Density (miles per square mile) 

for NFS Lands and for All Ownerships within the Forest Boundary by 

Alternative after 100+ Years 3-101

Table 3.6-1 Mapped Amount of Streams, Lakes and Ponds on the Tongass National Forest 

Lands 3-104

Table 3.6-2 Commonly Caught or Harvested Sport, Subsistence, and Commercial Fish 3-105

Table 3.6-3 Tongass National Forest Fish Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Projects 

Completed During 1996-2014 3-114

Table 3.6-4 Estimated Number of Existing and Maximum New Stream Crossings for New 

Roads and Reconstructed Roads Stream Crossing by Alternative over the 

Length of the Project (approximately 100+ years) 3-124

Table 3.7-1 2009 Alaska Region Sensitive Plants Known or Suspected to Occur on the 

Tongass National Forest 3-147

Table 3.7-2 Number of Invasive Plant Species on the Tongass National Forest by District 3-151

Table 3.7-3 Invasive Plants on the Tongass: Number of Occurrences and Invasiveness 

Ranking 3-151

Table 3.7-4 Maximum Acres of Harvest and Maximum Miles of Road Construction by 

Alternative 3-156
Contents

Final EIS xiii Contents

Table 3.7-5 Projected Harvest of Young Growth and Old Growth in Beach Buffers, RMAs, 

Old-Growth Reserves, other Non-Development LUDs, and 2001 Roadless 

Areas by Alternative 3-157

Table 3.7-6 Proportion of Known Occurrences of Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential 

to be in Old-Growth or Young-Growth Harvest Units after 100 Years 3-159

Table 3.7-7 Cumulative Percent of Original POG Remaining on All Ownerships in 2015 and 

Estimated Minimum Percent Remaining after 100+ Years for All Lands within 

the Tongass Forest Boundary 3-170

Table 3.7-8 Existing and Estimated Future Maximum Road Density (miles per square mile) 

for NFS Lands and for All Ownerships within the Forest Boundary by 

Alternative after 100+ Years 3-171

Table 3.9-1 Biogeographic Provinces in Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest 3-184

Table 3.9-2 Major Cover Types on the Tongass National Forest by Biogeographic Province 

(NFS Lands Only) 3-188

Table 3.9-3 Distribution of Productive Old-Growth Forest on the Tongass National Forest by 

Biogeographic Province (NFS Lands Only) 3-191

Table 3.9-4 Distribution of Old-Growth Forest on the Tongass National Forest by Elevation 

(NFS Lands Only) 3-192

Table 3.9-5 Forest-wide Distribution of Young Growth (NFS Lands Only) 3-194

Table 3.9-6 Original and Percent Remaining Total POG, High-Volume POG (SD5S, SD5N, 

SD67) Total and Below 800 feet, and Large-Tree POG (SD67) Total and Below 

800 feet by Biogeographic Province (NFS Lands Only) 3-196

Table 3.9-7 Number and Acreage of Existing Intact VCUs, Comparable to Large 

Watersheds, on the Tongass National Forest by Biogeographic Province (NFS 

and non-NFS lands) 3-197

Table 3.9-8 Distribution of Existing POG and Young Growth within the Reserve System and 

Matrix Lands (NFS Lands Only) 3-201

Table 3.9-9 Existing Productive Old-Growth Forest within Reserves and Matrix Lands 

(minimum protected vs. maximum harvested) by Alternative 3-203

Table 3.9-10 Existing Young Growth in Reserves and in Matrix Lands (minimum protected 

vs. maximum harvested) by Alternative 3-205

Table 3.9-11 Projected Harvest of Young-growth and Old-growth in Beach Buffers, RMAs, 

Old-Growth Habitat LUD, other Non-Development LUDs, and 2001 Roadless 

Areas by Alternative 3-207

Table 3.9-12 Estimated Percent of Original POG Remaining (Total and in Reserves) after 

100 Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS lands only) 3-209

Table 3.9-13 Estimated Percent of Original High-Volume POG Remaining (Total and in 

Reserves) after 100 Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS 

lands only) 3-210

Table 3.9-14 Estimated Percent of Original Large-Tree POG Remaining (Total and in 

Reserves) after 100 Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS 

lands only) 3-211

Table 3.9-15 Number and Acreage within Intact VCUs, Comparable to Large Watersheds , 

after 100+ Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and NonNFS lands) 3-212

Table 3.9-16 Cumulative Percent of Original Total POG Remaining on All Landownerships 

after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by Biogeographic Province and 

Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) 3-217

Table 3.9-17 Cumulative Percent of Original High-Volume POG Remaining on All 

Landownerships after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) 3-218
Contents

Contents xiv Final EIS

Table 3.9-18 Cumulative Percent of Original Large-tree POG Remaining on All 

Landownerships after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) 3-219

Table 3.10-1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, Candidate Species 

Under the ESA, and Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species and 

Potential for Occurrence on the Tongass National Forest 3-224

Table 3.10-2 Existing Forest-wide Deer Habitat Capability Using the Interagency Deer Model 

(NFS Lands Only) 3-231

Table 3.10-3 Existing Habitat Conditions Using the FRESH Deer Model (NFS Lands Only) 3-233

Table 3.10-4 Existing Estimated Average Road Densities and Percentage of WAAs in Road 

Density Categories on NFS Lands and All Lands Combined for All Roads and 

Open Roads Only within the Tongass National Forest Boundary (All Elevations) 3-236

Table 3.10-5 Modeled Deer Habitat Capability Using the Interagency Deer Model for 

Comparison to Forest Plan 18 Deer per Square Mile Standard and Guideline 

(NFS Lands Only) 3-239

Table 3.10-6 Migratory and Resident Birds Identified as Species of Concern in Southeast 

Alaska 3-244

Table 3.10-7 Endemic Wildlife Species Documented on the Tongass National Forest 3-248

Table 3.10-8 Productive Old-Growth Acreage in Reserves, Protected/Unscheduled in the 

Matrix, and Scheduled for Timber Harvest over 100 years (NFS lands only) 3-253

Table 3.10-9 Young-Growth Acreage in Reserves, Protected/Unscheduled in the Matrix, and 

Scheduled for Timber Harvest over 100 Years (NFS Lands Only) 3-253

Table 3.10-10 Relative Changes in Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by Biogeographic Province 

by Alternative in 25 years and 100 years based on the Interagency Deer 

Habitat Capability Model (NFS Lands Only) 3-264

Table 3.10-11 Habitat Conditions Resulting from Each Alternative Using the FRESH Deer 

Model in 25 years and 100 years (NFS Lands Only) 3-265

Table 3.10-12 Estimated Average Road Density and Percent of WAAs in Road Density 

Categories on NFS Lands and All Lands Combined for All Roads and for Open 

Roads Only within the Tongass National Forest Boundary by Alternative after 

100 Years 3-269

Table 3.10-13 Estimated Harvest (acres) of High-Volume (SD5N, SD5S, and SD67) and 

Large-Tree (SD67) Productive Old-Growth by Elevation Category and 

Alternative after 100 years (NFS lands only) 3-271

Table 3.10-14 Comparison of Alternatives in terms of their Long-term Ability to Meet the Wolf 

Guideline of Providing Sufficient Habitat to Support 18 Deer per Square Mile 

after 25 and 100+ Years of Forest Plan Implementation 1 (NFS Lands Only) 3-275

Table 3.10-15 Estimated Road Miles and Average Road Density below 1,200 ft. in Elevation 

on NFS Lands and All Lands Combined for All Roads and for Open Roads by 

Alternative after 100 Years 3-277

Table 3.11-1 Land Ownership Distribution, Tongass National Forest 3-297

Table 3.12a-1 Estimated Number of Road Miles (includes Decommissioned Roads) on All Lands

within the Tongass Forest Boundary for Each Alternative after Full

Implementation of the Forest Plan for 100 Years 3-311

Table 3.12a-2 Estimated Miles of Road Construction and Reconstruction by Alternative after 

100 Years 3-312

Table 3.12b-1 Existing Renewable Energy Projects 3-316

Table 3.12b-2 Transportation and Utility System Window and Avoidance Areas by LUD 

(acres) 3-318

Table 3.12b-3 Active Proposed and Unconstructed Renewable Energy Projects on or likely to 

affect National Forest System Lands 3-323

Table 3.13-1 Land Classification of Suitable Lands 3-328
Contents

Final EIS xv Contents

Table 3.13-2 Estimated Age Class Distribution of All Productive Forest Land and Suitable 

Productive Forest Land (acres) 3-329

Table 3.13-3 Estimated Age Class Distribution of Even-aged Young-Growth Stands (acres) 3-330

Table 3.13-4 Tongass National Forest Strata Characteristics–Productive Old-Growth Forest 3-332

Table 3.13-5 Timber Harvest and Imports for Southeast Alaska, 1997-2011 (MMBF) 3-341

Table 3.13-6 Land Classification, Suitable Lands, Projected Harvest, and PTSQ for OldGrowth and Young-Growth Harvest under Each Alternative 3-343

Table 3.13-7 Timber Management Practices as Modeled 3-345

Table 3.13-8 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (Decades 1 – 4, Annual) 3-346

Table 3.13-9 Projected Timber Sale Quantity and Sustained Yield Limit (MMBF) 3-348

Table 3.13-10 Forest-wide Stand Structures Existing and after 100 Years (thousands of acres) 3-349

Table 3.13-11 Maximum Estimated Annual Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska during the 

First Decade (MMBF) 3-350

Table 3.15-1 Tongass Recreation Facilities, 2015 3-358

Table 3.15-2 Comparison of ROS Classes 3-359

Table 3.15-3 Forest-wide Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Acres, 2015 3-361

Table 3.15-4 Forest-wide Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Acres by LUD Group, 2015 3-362

Table 3.15-5 Distribution of Recreation Place Acres by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Class 3-363

Table 3.15-6 Distribution of Recreation Places by General Use 3-363

Table 3.15-7 Important Recreation Places by Category 3-364

Table 3.15-8 Activities Participated in by Visitors to Southeast Alaska, Summer 2011 3-367

Table 3.15-9 Southeast Alaska Visitation, 1990 to 2013 3-369

Table 3.15-10 Alaska Arrivals by Transport Type and Visitor/Resident, Summer 2011 3-370

Table 3.15-11 Juneau Icefield and Mendenhall Glacier Visitation, 2000 to 2014 3-371

Table 3.15-12 Helicopter Tour Locations by Client and Group, 2014 3-373

Table 3.15-13 Outfitter/Guide Use by Ranger District, 2013 3-373

Table 3.15-14 Estimated Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested after 100 Years by ROS 

Setting 3-374

Table 3.15-15 Approximate Maximum Acres Potentially Harvested after 100 Years by LUD 

Group and LUD 3-376

Table 3.15-16 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Home Range Recreation Places, by 

LUD Group 3-377

Table 3.15-17 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Facilities, by LUD Group 3-378

Table 3.15-18 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Marine Recreation, by LUD Group 3-378

Table 3.15-19 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Hunting, by LUD Group 3-379

Table 3.15-20 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Fishing, by LUD Group 3-379

Table 3.15-21 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Tourism, by LUD Group 3-380

Table 3.15-22 Number of Developed Recreation Facilities within 0.5-mile of Suitable OldGrowth and Young-Growth Stands, by LUD Group 3-380

Table 3.16-1 The Existing Scenic Integrity of the Tongass National Forest (percent) 3-389

Table 3.16-2 Adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives for the Tongass (percent) 3-390

Table 3.16-3 Scenery Integrity Objectives for Suitable Young Growth by LUD, Distance 

Zone, and Alternative (percent) 3-392
Contents

Contents xvi Final EIS

Table 3.16-4 SIO Changes in Estimated Suitable Young Growth Forest Land for Each 

Alternative 3-394

Table 3.16-5 SIO Changes and Suitable Young Growth Acres in Selected Viewsheds 3-399

Table 3.17-1 Deer Harvest by Game Management Unit and Transportation Type, 2011 3-428

Table 3.18-1 Approximate Suitable Acres Under 100 Feet Elevation Likely to be Harvested 

over 25 Years 3-437

Table 3.18-2 Approximate Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested and Maximum Road Miles 

to be Constructed/Reconstructed over 25 Years 3-438

Table 3.18-3 Approximate Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested and Maximum Road Miles 

to be Constructed/Reconstructed over 100 Years 3-438

Table 3.19-1 Roadless Characteristics and Discussion Sections 3-442

Table 3.19-2 Tongass National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas Covered by the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule 3-443

Table 3.19-3 Estimated Old-Growth and Young-Growth Harvest After 100 Years within 

Current Inventoried Roadless Areas by Alternative 3-446

Table 3.20-1 Existing Wildernesses on the Tongass National Forest 3-451

Table 3.20-2 Percentage of Biogeographic Province in Existing Wilderness or Natural Setting 

LUDs 3-457

Table 3.21-1 National Forest System Land and Non-National Forest System Land within 

LUD II Areas 3-463

Table 3.21-2 Rivers (Segments) Recommended for Inclusion in National Wild and Scenic 

River Program in miles 3-471

Table 3.22-1 Southeast Alaska Economic Overview 3-479

Table 3.22-2 Southeast Alaska Employment by Sector, 2001 and 2013 3-480

Table 3.22-3 Natural Resource-Based Employment by Sector, 2013 3-481

Table 3.22-4 Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002-2014 3-485

Table 3.22-5 Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2002–2014 3-486

Table 3.22-6 Forest Service Mill Survey: Estimated Mill Capacity, Production, and Utilization, 

2013 3-488

Table 3.22-7 Additional Sawmills in Southeast Alaska Based on a Review of Business 

Licenses, 2015 3-489

Table 3.22-8 Projected Baseline Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Product Type 

(MMBF) all owners 3-492

Table 3.22-9 Projected Baseline Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Owner (MMBF) 3-493

Table 3.22-10 Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model and 

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (MMBF) 3-494

Table 3.22-11 Potential Non-Lumber Applications of Young Growth Timber in Southeast 

Alaska 3-497

Table 3.22-12 Seafood Processing Workforce by Borough, 2012 3-503

Table 3.22-13 Components of Per Capita Income 2013 3-504

Table 3.22-14 Components of Per Capita Transfer Payments, 2013 3-506

Table 3.22-15 Estimated Maximum Timber Harvest on the Tongass by Alternative, Year 1 to 

100 3-508

Table 3.22-16 Discounted Net Revenues by Alternative for 15, 25, and 100 Years 3-516

Table 3.22-17 Discounted Net Revenues by Alternative for 5-Year Increments (Years 1 to 25) 3-517

Table 3.22-19 Estimated Timber Industry Employment and Income by Alternative (First 

Decade, Annual Average) 3-519

Table 3.23-1 Borough/Census Area Population, 2000, 2010, and 2014 3-526

Table 3.23-2 Age by Borough 3-528
Contents

Final EIS xvii Contents

Table 3.23-3 Employment by Sector by Borough 2013 3-529

Table 3.23-4 Annual Unemployment Rates, 2005 to 2014 (Percent) 3-530

Table 3.23-5 Components of Per Capita Income, 2013 3-533

Table 3.23-6 Median Household Income and Poverty, 2013 3-534

Table 3.23-7 School Enrollment and Number of Students Eligible for Free and ReducedPrice Lunch by Borough, 2015 3-535

Table 3.23-8 Southeast Alaska Community Statistics 3-540

Table 3.23-9 School Enrollment by Community, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2014 3-542

Table 3.23-10 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Angoon’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-549

Table 3.23-11 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Angoon Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-551

Table 3.23-12 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Coffman Cove’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-554

Table 3.23-13 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Coffman Cove Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual 

Deer Harvest 3-556

Table 3.23-14 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Craig’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative 3-560

Table 3.23-15 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Craig 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-561

Table 3.23-16 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Edna Bay’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-565

Table 3.23-17 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Edna 

Bay Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-565

Table 3.23-18 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Elfin 

Cove Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-570

Table 3.23-19 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Gustavus’ Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-573

Table 3.23-20 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Gustavus Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-574

Table 3.23-21 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Haines’ Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-578

Table 3.23-22 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Haines 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-580
Contents

Contents xviii Final EIS

Table 3.23-23 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hollis’ Community Use 

Area by Alternative 3-583

Table 3.23-24 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Hollis 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-584

Table 3.23-25 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hoonah’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-589

Table 3.23-26 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Hoonah Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-589

Table 3.23-27 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hydaburg’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-593

Table 3.23-28 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Hydaburg Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer

Harvest 3-594

Table 3.23-29 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hyder’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-597

Table 3.23-30 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Juneau’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-601

Table 3.23-31 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Kake’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative 3-605

Table 3.23-32 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Kake 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-606

Table 3.23-33 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Kasaan’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-610

Table 3.23-34 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Kasaan Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-611

Table 3.23-35 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Ketchikan’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-615

Table 3.23-36 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Klawock’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-619

Table 3.23-37 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Klawock Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-621

Table 3.23-38 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Metlakatla’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-624

Table 3.23-39 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Metlakatla Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-626
Contents

Final EIS xix Contents

Table 3.23-40 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Meyers Chuck’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-628

Table 3.23-41 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Naukati Bay’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-631

Table 3.23-42 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Naukati Bay Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual 

Deer Harvest 3-632

Table 3.23-43 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Pelican’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-636

Table 3.23-44 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Pelican Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-637

Table 3.23-45 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Petersburg’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-641

Table 3.23-46 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Petersburg Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-643

Table 3.23-47 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Point Baker’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-646

Table 3.23-48 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Point 

Baker Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-647

Table 3.23-49 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Port Alexander’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-651

Table 3.23-50 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Port 

Alexander Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-651

Table 3.23-51 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Port Protection’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-654

Table 3.23-52 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Port 

Protection Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-655

Table 3.23-53 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Saxman’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-658

Table 3.23-54 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Sitka’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative 3-663

Table 3.23-55 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Sitka 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-664

Table 3.23-56 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Skagway’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-667
Contents

Contents xx Final EIS

Table 3.23-57 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Skagway Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-668

Table 3.23-58 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Tenakee Spring’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-671

Table 3.23-59 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Tenakee Springs Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual 

Deer Harvest 3-672

Table 3.23-60 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Thorne Bay’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-676

Table 3.23-61 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Thorne 

Bay Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-677

Table 3.23-62 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Whale Pass’ 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-681

Table 3.23-63 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Whale 

Pass Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-682

Table 3.23-64 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Wrangell’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-686

Table 3.23-65 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Wrangell Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-687

Table 3.23-66 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Yakutat’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-692

Table 3.23-67 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Yakutat Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-692

Table 3.23-68 Race/Ethnicity by Borough/Census Area, 2010 3-694
Contents

Final EIS xxi Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Tongass National Forest Vicinity Map 1-10

Figure 2-1 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 1 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by OldGrowth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 2-12

Figure 2-2 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 1 2-14

Figure 2-3 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 2 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by OldGrowth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 2-17

Figure 2-4 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 2 2-20

Figure 2-5 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 3 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by Old 

Growth (OG) and Young Growth (YG) 2-23

Figure 2-6 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-Growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 3 2-26

Figure 2-7 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 4 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by Old 

Growth (OG) and Young Growth (YG) 2-29

Figure 2-8 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young Growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 4 2-32

Figure 2-9 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 5 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by OldGrowth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 2-35

Figure 2-10 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young Growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 5 2-38

Figure 3.6-1 Commercial Harvest of Chinook, Sockeye and Coho Salmon in Southeast 

Alaska 1960–2013 3-105

Figure 3.6-2 Commercial Harvest of Pink, Chum, and Total Salmon in Southeast Alaska 

1960-2013 3-106

Figure 3.6-3 Commercial Harvest and Wholesale (Ex-vessel) CPI Adjusted Value of Salmon 

Produced from the Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska (1984-2013) 3-107

Figure 3.9-1 Map of Biogeographic Provinces of Southeast Alaska 3-186

Figure 3.9-2 Tree Size and Density Model used to Describe Forested Conditions across the 

Tongass National Forest 3-190

Figure 3.15-1 Southeast Alaska Cruise Passengers, 2000-2014 3-368

Figure 3.15-2 Southeast Alaska Visitation, 2000 to 2014 3-370

Figure 3.17-1 Native/Non-Native Components of Southeast Communities, 2010 3-421

Figure 3.17-2 Per Capita Subsistence Harvest by Community and Resource Type 3-423

Figure 3.20-1 Acres of Wilderness by State 3-453

Figure 3.20-2 Percent of Total Acres in the National Wilderness Preservation System by State 3-454

Figure 3.20-3 Percentage of Land Area in Wilderness by State 3-455

Figure 3.22-1 Natural Resource-Based Employment by Sector, 2013 3-482

Figure 3.22-2 2013 Nonresident Share of Direct Employment in Southeast Alaska. 3-483

Figure 3.22-3 Average Annual Seasonal Variation in Employment 2013 (percent) 3-484

Figure 3.22-4 Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002-2014 3-486

Figure 3.22-5 Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2002-2014 3-487
Contents

Contents xxii Final EIS

Figure 3.22-6 Volume under Contract by Owner, 2016 3-490

Figure 3.22-7 Projected Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2015-2030 3-493

Figure 3.22-8 Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model and 

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 3-495

Figure 3.22-9 Seafood Harvesting and Fish Processing Employment in Southeast Alaska, 

2000 to 2013 3-502

Figure 3.22-10 Components of Per Capita Income 2013 3-505

Figure 3.22-11 Estimated Maximum Young-Growth Timber Supply on the Tongass by 

Alternative, Year 1 to 100 3-509

Figure 3.22-12 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 1 3-512

Figure 3.22-13 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 2 3-513

Figure 3.22-14 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 3 3-514

Figure 3.22-15 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 4 3-515

Figure 3.22-16 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 5 3-515

Figure 3.22-17 Net Revenues for Old Growth by Alternative for 5-Year Increments (Years 1 to 

25) 3-517

Figure 3.22-18 Net Revenues for Young Growth by Alternative for 5-Year Increments (Years 1 

to 25) 3-518

Figure 3.23-1 Southeast Alaska Population, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 through 2014 3-526

Figure 3.23-2 Annual Unemployment Rates in Southeast Alaska, Alaska, and the United 

States, 2005 to 2014 (Percent) 3-531

Figure 3.23-3 Annual Unemployment Rates in the Northern Boroughs of Southeast Alaska, 

2005 to 2014 (Percent) 3-531

Figure 3.23-4 Annual Unemployment Rates in the Southern Boroughs of Southeast Alaska, 

2005 to 2014 (Percent) 3-532

Figure 3.23-5 Components of Per Capita Income, 2013 3-533

Figure 3.23-6 Angoon Population 1970 to 2014 3-547

Figure 3.23-7 Angoon’s Community Use Area 3-549

Figure 3.23-8 Coffman Cove Population 1980 to 2014 3-552

Figure 3.23-9 Coffman Cove’s Community Use Area 3-554

Figure 3.23-10 Craig Population 1970 to 2014 3-557

Figure 3.23-11 Craig’s Community Use Area 3-559

Figure 3.23-12 Edna Bay Population 1970 to 2014 3-562

Figure 3.23-13 Edna Bay’s Community Use Area 3-564

Figure 3.23-14 Elfin Cove Population 1970 to 2014 3-566

Figure 3.23-15 Elfin Cove’s Community Use Area 3-569

Figure 3.23-16 Gustavus Population 1970 to 2014 3-571

Figure 3.23-17 Gustavus’ Community Use Area 3-573

Figure 3.23-18 Haines Population 1970 to 2014 3-576

Figure 3.23-19 Haines’ Community Use Area 3-578

Figure 3.23-20 Hollis Population 1990 to 2014 3-581

Figure 3.23-21 Hollis’ Community Use Area 3-583

Figure 3.23-22 Hoonah Population 1970 to 2014 3-586

Figure 3.23-23 Hoonah’s Community Use Area 3-588

Figure 3.23-24 Hydaburg Population 1970 to 2014 3-591

Figure 3.23-25 Hydaburg’s Community Use Area 3-593

Figure 3.23-26 Hyder Population 1970 to 2014 3-595

Figure 3.23-27 Hyder’s Community Use Area 3-597
Contents

Final EIS xxiii Contents

Figure 3.23-28 Juneau Population 1970 to 2014 3-599

Figure 3.23-29 Juneau’s Community Use Area 3-601

Figure 3.23-30 Kake Population 1970 to 2014 3-603

Figure 3.23-31 Kake’s Community Use Area 3-605

Figure 3.23-32 Kasaan Population 1970 to 2014 3-608

Figure 3.23-33 Kasaan’s Community Use Area 3-610

Figure 3.23-34 Ketchikan Population 1970 to 2014 3-613

Figure 3.23-35 Ketchikan’s Community Use Area 3-615

Figure 3.23-36 Klawock Population 1970 to 2014 3-617

Figure 3.23-37 Klawock’s Community Use Area 3-619

Figure 3.23-38 Metlakatla Population 1970 to 2014 3-622

Figure 3.23-39 Metlakatla’s Community Use Area 3-624

Figure 3.23-40 Meyers Chuck’s Community Use Area 3-627

Figure 3.23-41 Naukati Bay Population 1990 to 2014 3-629

Figure 3.23-42 Naukati Bay’s Community Use Area 3-631

Figure 3.23-43 Pelican Population 1970 to 2014 3-634

Figure 3.23-44 Pelican’s Community Use Area 3-636

Figure 3.23-45 Petersburg Population 1970 to 2014 3-638

Figure 3.23-46 Petersburg’s Community Use Area 3-641

Figure 3.23-47 Point Baker Population 1970 to 2014 3-644

Figure 3.23-48 Point Baker’s Community Use Area 3-646

Figure 3.23-49 Port Alexander Population 1970 to 2014 3-648

Figure 3.23-50 Port Alexander’s Community Use Area 3-650

Figure 3.23-51 Port Protection Population 1980 to 2014 3-652

Figure 3.23-52 Port Protection’s Community Use Area 3-653

Figure 3.23-53 Saxman Population 1970 to 2014 3-656

Figure 3.23-54 Saxman’s Community Use Area 3-658

Figure 3.23-55 Sitka Population 1970 to 2014 3-660

Figure 3.23-56 Sitka’s Community Use Area 3-662

Figure 3.23-57 Skagway Population 1970 to 2014 3-665

Figure 3.23-58 Skagway’s Community Use Area 3-667

Figure 3.23-59 Tenakee Springs Population 1970 to 2014 3-669

Figure 3.23-60 Tenakee Springs’ Community Use Area 3-671

Figure 3.23-61 Thorne Bay Population 1970 to 2014 3-674

Figure 3.23-62 Thorne Bay’s Community Use Area 3-676

Figure 3.23-63 Whale Pass Population 1970 to 2014 3-679

Figure 3.23-64 Whale Pass’ Community Use Area 3-681

Figure 3.23-65 Wrangell Population 1970 to 2014 3-684

Figure 3.23-66 Wrangell’s Community Use Area 3-686

Figure 3.23-67 Yakutat Population 1970 to 2014 3-689

Figure 3.23-68 Yakutat’s Community Use Area 3-691
Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations xxiv Final EIS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

ABC Islands Admiralty, Baranof, and Chicagof Islands

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACS American Community Survey

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

ADED Alaska Department of Economic Development

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

AEA Alaska Energy Authority

AEL&P Alaska Electric Light & Power 

AF Alluvial Fan

AFHA Anadromous Fisheries Habitat Assessment

AKEPIC Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse

Alaska DCRA Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs

AMHS Alaska Marine Highway System

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971

ANHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980

AP&T Alaska Power & Telephone

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

ASQ allowable sale quantity

ATM access and travel management

AVSP Alaska Visitor Statistics Program

BBER Bureau of Business and Economic Research

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BE biological evaluation

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BP before present

°C degrees Celsius

CA Census Area

CDP Census Designated Places 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMAI culmination of mean annual increment

CO carbon monoxide

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CUA Community Use Area

DBH diameter at breast height

DCCED Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Contents

Final EIS xxv Acronyms and Abbreviations

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DOL Department of Labor

DPS distinct population segment

EA environmental assessment

EFH essential fish habitat

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESI Existing Scenic Integrity

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FCRPA Federal Cave Resources Protection Act

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FEIS Final Enviromental Impact Statement

FIA FHM Forest Inventory and Analysis-Forest Health Monitoring

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FORPlan Previous Forest Planning Model

Forest Plan Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

FP Flood Plain

FPA Federal Power Act

FRESH Forest Resource Evaluation System for Habitat

FR Federal Register

FRPL free and reduced-price lunch

FSM Forest Service Manual

FY fiscal year

GCRP (U.S.) Global Change Research Program

GIS geographic information system

GMU Game Management Unit

GSA General Services Administration

HC High Gradient Contained 

HCA Habitat Conservation Area

HSI Habitat Suitability Index

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

IFA Inter-Island Ferry Authority

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPEC Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

IRP Integrated Resource Plan 

km kilometer

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt hour

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations xxvi Final EIS

LSTA Logging System and Transportation Analysis

LTF log transfer facility

LTSP Long-Term Soil Productivity 

LTSY long-term sustained yield

LUD Land Use Designation

LWD large woody debris

MAP mean annual precipitation 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MBF thousand board feet

MIS Management Indicator Species

MM Moderate Gradient Mixed Control 

MMBF million board feet

MMI Mass Movement Index

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map 

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act of 1976

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOA notice of availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NPS National Park Service

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council

NRIS Natural Resource Information System 

NSLP National School Lunch Program

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

NVCS National Vegetation Classification Standard

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring

NWI National Wetland Inventory

OGR old-growth reserve

OHV off-highway vehicle

P Primitive

PCE Power Cost Equalization 

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Imapct Statement

PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns in size 

PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns in size 

PNW Pacific Northwest

POG productive old growth
Contents

Final EIS xxvii Acronyms and Abbreviations

ppm parts per million

PTSQ projected timber sale quantity 

PWSQ projected wood sale quantity

R Rural

RARE Roadless Area Review and Evaluation

RAW reasonable assurance of windfirmness 

RM Roaded Modified

RMA Riparian Management Area 

RN Roaded Natural

RNA Research Natural Area

Roadless Rule Roadless Area Conservation Rule

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for 

Users

SATP Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan

SDEIS Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

SDM Size-Density Model

SEACC Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

SEAPA Southeast Alaska Power Agency

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIO Scenic Integrity Objective

SMS Scenery Management System

SNAP Scenarios Network for Alaska & Arctic Planning 

SO2 sulfer dioxide

SOC Statement of Concern

SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized

SPNM Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

SPTH site potential tree height 

SYL sustained yield limit

T77 Tongass 77

TAC Tongass Advisory Committee 

TRUCS Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey

TSC Transportation Systems Corridor

TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990

TUS Transportation and Utility System

TWYGS Tongass-wide Young-Growth Studies

U Urban

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VCU Value Comparison Unit

VMS Visual Management System 

VPR Visual Priority Route
Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations xxviii Final EIS

WAA Wildlife Analysis Area

WCF Watershed Condition Framework 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary

Final EIS ES-1 Executive Summary

Chapter 1.

Executive Summary

Introduction

Forest land and resource management planning is a process for developing, 

amending, and revising land and resource management plans for each of the 

National Forests in the National Forest System (NFS). Forest plans are required 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] parts 1600-1687). The 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forest was 

the first forest to complete a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

under the NFMA in 1979. That Forest Plan was amended in 1986 and 1991 and

revised in 1997. A final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

was completed in 2003, which further evaluated roadless areas for their 

wilderness potential. The Forest Plan was amended again in 2008 in response 

to a Ninth Circuit Court ruling and a 5-Year Plan Review completed in 2005. The 

revised Plan was amended 24 times between the 1997 revision and the 2008 

amendment, primarily to adjust small old-growth habitat reserve boundaries and 

for electronic/communication site designations. Since the 2008 amendment, the 

plan has been amended to establish the Héen Latinee Experimental Forest, 

disestablish the Young Bay Experimental Forest, add communication sites to the 

list in Appendix E, modify small old-growth habitat reserves, and make minor 

corrections to the plan.

On July 2, 2013, Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, issued Memorandum 

1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2013), which expressed the Secretary’s intent

to transition the Tongass National Forest to a young growth–based timber 

program in 10 to 15 years, more rapidly than considered in the 2008 Forest Plan. 

The Secretary asked that the Forest Service “[s]trongly consider whether to 

pursue an amendment to the Tongass Forest Plan. Such an amendment would 

evaluate which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially young growth 

timber stands, which lands should be excluded, and additional opportunities to 

promote and speed transition to young-growth management.” Recognizing the 

importance of retaining expertise and infrastructure, the Secretary also stated 

that the Forest Service “will continue to offer a supply of old growth timber while 

increasing the supply of young growth to provide industry in Alaska the 

opportunity to develop new markets, learn new skills, and acquire new 

equipment.” The Secretary also asked that a determination of whether to initiate 

an amendment be completed by September 30, 2013.

The Forest Service completed a Five-Year Review of the Forest Plan in 

September 2013. The results of the Five-Year Review and the Secretary’s 

Memorandum led to the Tongass Forest Supervisor making a determination that 

“...conditions on the land and demands of the public require the Tongass to 

modify the 2008 Forest Plan” (USDA Forest Service 2013a). A Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2014 

(79 Federal Register [FR] 30074) initiating a 30-day scoping period. Among the 

comments from the Five-Year Review and from scoping were those that
Executive Summary

Executive Summary ES-2 Final EIS

requested a transition to young-growth timber harvesting, ways to make 

renewable energy projects easier to implement, and a review of the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) inventoried roadless areas 

(IRAs). All comments were taken into consideration in identifying the scope of 

this Forest Plan amendment.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is a programmatic analysis 

prepared by the Forest Service that describes and analyzes changes to the 

Forest Plan to accomplish the transition to young-growth management as 

provided in the Secretary’s Memorandum. This FEIS evaluates which lands will 

be suitable for timber production, especially young-growth timber stands, and any 

changes or additions to management direction needed to promote and speed the 

transition to young-growth management while maintaining a viable timber 

industry in Southeast Alaska. This FEIS also describes and analyzes changes 

related to renewable energy development. The scope of the analysis is limited to 

these changes. 

This FEIS analyzes in detail four action alternatives for amending the Plan, in 

addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). The analysis is published in 

two volumes. Volume 1 contains the FEIS, and Volume 2 contains the FEIS 

appendices. A complete Forest Plan Land Use Designation (LUD) map is 

provided for each of the alternatives in the Map Packet which accompanies the 

FEIS.

A separate document titled Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (i.e., 

the Forest Plan) is published along with the FEIS and represents the selected 

alternative (Alternative 5). Chapter 2 and Appendix F in the FEIS describe how 

the other alternatives compare to Alternative 5. Instead of repeating all of the 

changes in management direction common to Alternatives 1-4 and Alternative 5, 

management direction of the alternatives is displayed in a side-by-side 

comparative format to demonstrate how and where direction differs from 

Alternative 5.

This FEIS describes and analyzes changes to the 2008 Forest Plan and tiers to

and incorporates by reference the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan 

Revision FEIS (1997 FEIS), the 2003 Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for 

Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations (2003 FSEIS), and the 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment FEIS (2008 

FEIS), and the 2008 Record of Decision (2008 ROD). Where appropriate, 

information in these documents that is relevant to analysis in this FEIS is cited and

incorporated by reference.

Purpose and Need

The Forest Service determined that it is necessary to amend the 2008 Forest 

Plan. Amending the Forest Plan originates from the July 2013 memo from the 

Secretary of Agriculture directing the Tongass National Forest to transition its 

forest management program to be more ecologically, socially, and economically 

sustainable, while also being responsive to comments from the Five-Year Review

of the Forest Plan. The purpose of this plan amendment is to:

• Review lands within the plan area to determine suitability for timber 

production, especially young-growth timber stands.

• Identify the projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ) and the sustained yield 

limit (i.e., the ecological yield of timber that can be removed annually on a 

sustained yield basis).
Executive Summary

Final EIS ES-3 Executive Summary

• Establish plan components (e.g., standards and guidelines) for young-growth 

forest management and renewable energy development to guide future 

project decision-making.

• Consolidate modifications made to the Forest Plan since its approval.

An amendment is necessary for responding to the July 2013 direction from 

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined in the Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-

009. The memorandum directs management of the Tongass National Forest to 

expedite the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting and towards a 

forest products industry that uses predominantly second-growth – or younggrowth – forests. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum also directs that the 

transition must be implemented in a manner that preserves a viable timber 

industry that provides jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. 

USDA's goal is to effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 years, so that 

at the end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be 

young growth. This timeframe will conserve old-growth forests while allowing the 

forest industry time to adapt. The 2008 Forest Plan provides for a transition to 

young growth over time, but there are challenges in establishing an economically 

viable young-growth forest management program due to the relatively young age 

of the available stands, market conditions, and other factors. Secretary Vilsack’s 

direction requires Forest Plan amendments to guide future management of NFS 

lands and allocation of resources on the Tongass National Forest under the 

multiple-use and sustained yield mandate. 

The need to amend the plan is further corroborated by the Five-Year Review of 

the Forest Plan, completed in 2013, which concluded that conditions on the land 

and demands of the public necessitate the Tongass National Forest to make 

changes to the Forest Plan. Concerns were consistently expressed during the 

Five-Year Review regarding the impact of rising fossil fuel prices and increasing 

climate change on the quality of life in Southeast Alaska. Changes to the Forest 

Plan are needed to make the development of renewable energy resources more 

permissible, including considering access and utility corridors to stimulate 

economic development in Southeast Alaska communities, and provide lowcarbon energy alternatives, thereby displacing the use of fossil fuel.

Significant issues

The Forest Service used the scoping process to determine the scope of issues to 

be addressed and identify the significant issues related to a proposed action.

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during scoping.

Issue 1 –Young Growth Transition

The Secretary of Agriculture asked the Forest Service to transition to a younggrowth-based timber management program on the Tongass National Forest in 10 

to 15 years, which is more rapid than planned. This transition is intended to 

support the Tongass managing its forest for an ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable forest management program and reduce old-growth 

harvest while still providing economic timber to support the local forest products 

industry.

The issue concerns financial efficiency, salability, and volume of future timber 

sales. It also relates to the potential local employment and revenues generated 

for communities in the local area. Young-growth stand growth rates, sustainable 

harvest rates, the amount of old-growth harvest needed during transition to 

sustain the timber industry, also known as “bridge timber,” and the locations 
Executive Summary

Executive Summary ES-4 Final EIS

where young-growth harvest would take place are some of the factors to be 

considered.

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy

The development of renewable energy projects on the Tongass would help 

Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil fuel dependence, stimulate 

economic development, and lower carbon emissions in the Region.

This issue relates to comments received during the Five-Year Review of the 

Forest Plan. The Forest Service should promote the development of renewable 

energy projects to help Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil energy 

dependence, where it is compatible with National Forest purposes and to ensure 

that the planning, construction, and operation of projects protect and effectively 

use NFS lands and resources. 

Issue 3 –Inventoried Roadless Areas

Timber harvest and road building that occurred in roadless areas before the 2001

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) was enacted and during the 

Tongass exemption period changed the values or features that often characterize 

inventoried roadless areas in some locations.

Issues and concerns received during scoping as well as during the Five-Year 

Review process expressed concerns about roadless areas on the Tongass; both 

in favor of protections afforded under the 2001 Roadless Rule as well as 

requesting that the forest plan be amended to address the significant changes 

brought about by its re-instatement on the Tongass. 

Some people believe roadless areas on the Tongass should be allowed to evolve

naturally through their own dynamic processes and should be afforded protection 

that ensures this will occur. Others believe that limiting road construction and 

reconstruction or other management actions in roadless areas might restrict the 

delivery of goods, services, and activities that these areas might otherwise 

provide. 

Roadless areas are considered important because they support a diversity of 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats, species, and communities, and play an important 

role in helping to conserve native plant and animal communities and biological 

diversity. They also provide people with unique recreation opportunities. 

During the Tongass exemption period and before the 2001 Roadless Rule was 

enacted, road construction, reconstruction, and the cutting, and sale of timber in 

some IRAs occurred. As a result, these activities in some IRAs may have altered 

the roadless characteristics. 

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy

Old-growth timber harvest has changed the composition and spatial patterns of 

terrestrial wildlife habitats. How the resulting young-growth is managed may 

influence the future ecological integrity of the landscape at various scales. 

Changes made to suitable lands designated for development, and to plan 

components (e.g., standards and guidelines) may affect old-growth habitat for 

wildlife and the Tongass Old-growth Habitat Conservation Strategy and 

contributing elements to old-growth reserves (e.g., riparian, beach and estuary 

habitats).
Executive Summary

Final EIS ES-5 Executive Summary

The Tongass National Forest supports an important assemblage of wildlife many 

of which are associated with or at least partially dependent on old-growth forest 

including one of the largest populations of brown bears in the world, high 

densities of breeding bald eagles, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, species of 

high importance for subsistence (e.g., Sitka black-tailed deer), an extensive array 

of endemic mammals, and other species that are dependent on old-growth 

habitats (e.g., marten and goshawk). The Tongass Old-growth Habitat 

Conservation Strategy is considered important for the continued health of oldgrowth associated wildlife populations in Southeast Alaska. 

Timber harvest, minerals and renewable energy development, and road 

development can have effects on the habitat and populations of many of these 

species and the diversity and integrity of Southeast Alaska ecosystems. Less 

than 10 percent of the productive old-growth habitat on the Tongass has been 

converted to young growth, the percentage is much higher for certain types of old 

growth, such as lowland and large-tree old growth. In addition, non-NFS old 

growth has generally been harvested at a much higher rate. Therefore, the 

consideration of harvest and road building on wildlife in Southeast Alaska are 

greater than the effects for the Tongass by itself.

Alternatives 

Forest Plan 

The current 2008 Forest Plan is associated with the No- Action alternative 

(Alternative 1). However, a number of changes to the Forest Plan text are being 

proposed. These changes are incorporated into a Forest Plan (Land and 

Resource Management Plan), which accompanies the EIS. The Forest Plan was 

developed based on the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5).The individual 

alternative descriptions on the following pages identify the major changes in the 

Forest Plan.

Timber Demand

In past Forest Plan revisions and amendments, varying demand scenarios were 

used to develop alternatives, including scenarios that allowed for growth and 

expansion of the current industry. In this amendment, the purpose and need 

identifies the need to expedite the transition away from old-growth timber 

harvesting and towards a forest products industry that uses predominantly 

second-growth – or young-growth – forests. Therefore, examination of 

alternatives at levels above projected demand is not warranted because these 

would require expansion of old-growth harvest levels, at least during the next 10 

to 15 years. However, over the longer term, expansion of the timber industry is 

an option as more and more young growth becomes economic to harvest. 

Therefore, Alternatives 1 through 5 were designed to correspond with current 

demand projections and produce a projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ)1 of 

about 46 MMBF per year during the next 15 years, with old growth making up a 

decreasing percentage of the total. Old-growth volume would continue to 

decrease until it reaches about 5 MMBF per year and it would remain at that 

level, to support limited small timber operators. As more young growth becomes 

economic to harvest, the PTSQ would be allowed to increase. In no case, would 

 1 PTSQ is a new term defined in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 60. The term allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ) is not used with the 2012 planning rule. 
Executive Summary

Executive Summary ES-6 Final EIS

the harvest level be allowed to exceed the sustained yield limit (SYL) (see 

Glossary and the Timber section of this EIS).

Even though Alternative 1 (no action) represents current management, it is 

modeled to follow the same volume production pattern. The July 2013 

Secretary’s memo identified a need to change direction in the 2008 Forest Plan 

(see Purpose and Need in Chapter 1) and without this amendment, the Tongass 

would be transitioning toward young-growth and away from old-growth harvest. 

Provisions Common to all Alternatives

Under all alternatives, there is flexibility in terms of when young-growth stands 

may be harvested. Under Public Law 113-291, up to 15,000 acres of young 

growth may be harvested from 2016 through 2025, in stands less than 95 

percent of CMAI. This CMAI flexibility may continue after 2025 (with annual 

maximums); however, the total acreage harvested at less than 95 percent of 

CMAI cannot exceed 50,000. In addition, young-growth sales under this 

provision may not be offered unless they represent non-deficit sales.

2 There is 

flexibility in NFMA to allow a continuation of harvesting at younger ages beyond 

2025.

LUD Changes Common to the Action Alternatives

The LUD allocations for each alternative are described in the following 

alternative-specific descriptions. The LUDs for Alternative 1 (no action) are the 

same as the LUDs of the current Forest Plan. The LUDs of the action 

alternatives are different from Alternative 1 LUDs because of Old-growth Habitat 

LUD changes. Under Public Law 113-291, approximately 70,000 acres of NFS 

land were conveyed to Sealaska Corporation and an additional 152,000 acres 

were converted to LUD II. As a result of the land conveyance, old-growth 

reserves (OGRs) in 16 VCUs were affected. Beginning in February 2015, an 

interagency review team of biologists worked to develop a biologically preferred 

option for modifying these OGRs that meets Forest Plan Appendix K criteria and 

to document why other proposals are not recommended. In September 2015, 

the interagency review team produced a biologically preferred option (see 

Appendix E), which was incorporated into each of the action alternatives. 

Therefore, the Old-growth Habitat LUD acres vary between Alternative 1 and the 

action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5).

In addition, the Transportation and Utility Systems LUD would be removed under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. The LUD management prescription would be 

replaced by plan components under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 and would provide 

management direction for renewable energy and transportation systems 

corridors (see Chapter 5 in the proposed Forest Plan). 

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The no action alternative represents current management direction (2008 Forest 

Plan) and includes the application of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Roadless Rule) (36 CFR 294 Subpart B). As noted above, it also follows the 

direction provided in the July 2013 Secretary’s memo, which identified a need to 

 2

Any sale of trees pursuant to the authority granted under subparagraph (A) shall not—

(iii) be advertised if the indicated rate is deficit (defined as the value of the timber is not 

sufficient to cover all logging and stumpage costs and provide a normal profit and risk 

allowance under the appraisal process of the Forest Service) when appraised using a 

residual value appraisal.
Executive Summary

Final EIS ES-7 Executive Summary

transition away from old-growth harvest. Under this alternative, timber harvest 

would follow the existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy 

(USDA Forest Service 2008c). A color map showing the phases in this strategy 

is provided along with the FEIS. Timber harvest is currently restricted to areas 

within Phase 1 of the strategy and timber harvest would have to reach 100 

MMBF for two years before harvest could occur in Phase 2 areas. Timber 

management would be restricted to the development LUDs and would remain 

outside of inventoried roadless areas. No commercial harvest would be allowed 

in beach and estuary fringe or RMAs. All other 2008 Forest Plan management 

direction would be followed.

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young-growth. However, beyond that, the minimum harvest age would 

return to 95 percent of CMAI except under exemptions provided by the NFMA. 

Alternative 1 would result in the most old-growth harvest among the alternatives 

over both 25-year and 100-year periods. Table 2-2 summarizes the key 

elements of Alternative 1 and Table 2-3 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped 

suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for young 

growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It 

would emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 

MMBF per year. As such, it is expected to produce about 8 MMBF of young 

growth and 38 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-

1). From Year 10 through Year 25, it is projected to produce about 15 MMBF of 

young growth and 31 MMBF of old growth per year. At about Year 32, the 

young-growth harvest is expected to increase to about 41 MMBF and the oldgrowth harvest would decrease to 5 MMBF per year. The young-growth harvest 

is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 32 and is expected 

to reach an upper limit of about 133 MMBF in about Year 38. The old-growth 

harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

As in Alternative 1, this alternative would follow the existing timber sale program 

adaptive management strategy for old-growth harvest (USDA Forest Service 

2008c) (see color map accompanying the FEIS); as a result, all old-growth 

harvest would come from Phase 1, at least during the first 15 years or so. After 

harvest volume exceeds 100 MMBF for two years, it is possible that limited oldgrowth harvest could occur in Phase 2 areas. Young-growth harvest could come 

from any phase of the strategy at any time. The portions of inventoried roadless 

areas (IRAs) that were roaded before the 2001 Roadless Rule and during the 

2001 Roadless Rule exemption period for the Tongass would be available for 

young-growth and old-growth harvest. This would require rulemaking to modify 

36 CFR 294.13(b)(4). If selected, no harvest could occur in IRAs until 

rulemaking is completed. No Roadless Area harvest outside of these roaded 

areas would be allowed.

Alternative 2 would differ substantially from Alternative 1 in terms of lands 

identified as suitable for young-growth timber production. Young-growth 

management would be allowed in both development and natural setting LUDs 

(except for Congressionally designated and administratively withdrawn areas, 

such as Wilderness, and islands less than 1,000 acres in size), in beach and 
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary ES-8 Final EIS

estuary fringe, RMAs outside of Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) buffers, and 

high-vulnerability karst. 

Young-growth management may include clearcutting in all areas, except in 

RMAs and on high-vulnerability karst, where only commercial thinning (up to 33 

percent basal area removal) would be allowed. After 15 years, clearcutting 

would no longer be allowed in the beach and estuary fringe and only commercial 

thinning would be allowed. In addition, in beach and estuary fringe, the intent is 

to maintain an approximate 1,000-ft wide protected corridor adjacent and inland 

of any even-aged harvest unit to function as an alternate, low elevation, natural 

habitat corridor. 

Scenery standards for young-growth management would be relaxed. The SIOs 

would be designated as Very Low for all LUDs and distance zones. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young-growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to 

be flexible under exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves 

flexibility in renewable energy development under this alternative. Scenery 

standards for renewable energy development would be relaxed to Very Low for 

all LUDs and distance zones. 

Among the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would provide the largest amount of 

timber volume (old growth and young growth combined), including the largest 

amount of young-growth volume from lands suitable for timber production. It 

would result in the smallest amount of old growth timber volume over both 25-

year and 100-year periods. Table 2-5 summarizes the key elements of 

Alternative 2 and Table 2-6 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, 

and projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and old 

growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1), 

emphasizing young growth and minimizing old growth. As such, it is expected to 

produce an average of about 22 MMBF of young growth and 24 MMBF of old 

growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-3). From Years 11 through 

15, Alternative 2 is projected to produce an average of 61 MMBF of young 

growth and 5 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 2 would likely reach a full 

transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth about Year 12. Young-growth 

harvest is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 12 and is 

expected to reach an upper limit of about 120 MMBF in Year 17. The old-growth 

harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would allow old-growth harvest only in Phase 1 of the existing 

timber sale program adaptive management strategy (USDA Forest Service 

2008c) (see color map accompanying this FEIS) but would allow young-growth 

harvest in all phases. This alternative would allow young-growth and old-growth 

harvest in 2001 Roadless Rule IRAs. If this alternative were selected, harvest in 

IRAs would be deferred until agency rulemaking modifies 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4) 

(2001). 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 in that it identifies lands as suitable for 

young-growth timber production in both development and natural setting LUDs 
Executive Summary 

Final EIS ES-9 Executive Summary

(except for Congressionally designated areas such as Wilderness, 

administratively withdrawn areas, and islands less than 1,000 acres in size), as 

well as in beach and estuary fringe and high-vulnerability karst, but not in RMAs. 

Young-growth management may include clearcutting in all areas, except in 

beach and estuary fringe and on high-vulnerability karst, where only commercial 

thinning is allowed. 

In addition, for young-growth harvest units larger than 20 acres in VCUs that 

have had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended that 30 percent of the 

young growth stand acres should be left. This legacy provision would be 

described as a Management Approach in the Forest Plan. 

Scenery standards for young growth management would be reduced by one level 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. SIOs would be reduced as follows: High would 

be reduced to Moderate, Moderate would be reduced to Low, and Low and Very 

Low would become Very Low. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to 

be flexible under exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves 

flexibility in renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO 

(scenery standard) for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs 

and distance zones. 

Alternative 3 would provide the second largest amount of timber volume (old 

growth and young growth combined). It would result in the second lowest 

harvest of old growth over both the 25-year and 100-year periods. Table 2-8 

summarizes the key elements of Alternative 3 and Table 2-9 summarizes the 

LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this 

alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It 

would emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 

MMBF per year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 20 

MMBF of young growth and 26 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 

years (Figure 2-5). From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an 

average of 50 MMBF of young growth and about 5 MMBF of old growth per year. 

Alternative 3 would likely reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young 

growth at about Year 13. Young-growth harvest is expected to continue to 

increase at a rapid rate after Year 13 and is expected to reach an upper limit of 

about 117 MMBF in Year 17. The old-growth harvest rate would be held at 5 

MMBF per year to support small and micro sales. 

Alternative 4 

Like Alternative 3, this alternative would allow old-growth harvest only in Phase 1 

of the existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy (see color 

map accompanying this FEIS), but in contrast with Alternative 3, it would also 

limit young-growth harvest to only Phase 1. Similar to Alternative 1, this 

alternative includes the application of the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Alternative 4 would allow young-growth management only in the development 

LUDs. Harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe and on high-vulnerability 
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary ES-10 Final EIS

karst, but only commercial thinning is allowed. No harvest is allowed in RMAs. 

Young growth management may include clearcutting in other areas. 

In addition, for young-growth harvest units larger than 20 acres in VCUs that 

have had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended that 30 percent of the 

young growth stand acres should be left. This legacy provision would be 

described as a Management Approach in the Forest Plan. 

No change would occur in scenery standards relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young-growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to 

be flexible under exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves 

flexibility in renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO 

(scenery standard) for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs 

and distance zones. 

Alternative 4 would provide the smallest amount of timber volume (old growth 

and young growth combined) and the smallest amounts of young-growth volume. 

It would result in the second highest harvest of old growth during both the 25-

year and 100-year periods. Table 2-11 summarizes the key elements of 

Alternative 4, and Table 2-12 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable 

acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and 

old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It 

would emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 

MMBF per year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 11 

MMBF of young growth and 35 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 

years (Figure 2-7). From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an 

average of 26 MMBF of young growth and about 20 MMBF of old growth per 

year. Alternative 4 would likely reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of 

young growth about Year 16. Young-growth harvest is expected to continue to 

increase at a rapid rate after Year 16 and is expected to reach an upper limit of 

87 MMBF about Year 18. The old-growth harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF 

per year to support small and micro sales. 

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 5 is the Preferred Alternative. This alternative is based on the 

recommendations from the Tongass Advisory Committee (TAC), a formally 

established Federal Advisory Committee (see Appendix B of the Forest Plan). 

The establishment of the TAC represents a turning point in Tongass 

management seeking new approaches, practices, and responses. The TAC 

offers a regionally focused, collaborative path toward an innovative opportunity 

for a viable young growth timber industry while honoring the suite of values – 

economic, ecological, social, and cultural – inherent in the Forest. 

Like Alternatives 3 and 4, this alternative would allow old-growth harvest only 

within Phase 1 of the timber sale program adaptive management strategy (see 

color map accompanying this FEIS). As in Alternatives 1 and 4, the 2001 

Roadless Rule would apply and no old-growth or young-growth harvest would 

occur in roadless areas. In addition, old-growth harvest is excluded from all 
Executive Summary 

Final EIS ES-11 Executive Summary

Tongass 77 (T77)3 watersheds and TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas 

(Albert and Schoen 2007). These old-growth harvest exclusion areas are shown 

on the large color map for Alternative 5 that accompanies this FEIS. 

As in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, Alternative 5 would allow young-growth harvest in 

all three phases of the timber sale program adaptive management strategy. It 

would allow young-growth management in development LUDs and in the Oldgrowth Habitat LUD including harvest in beach and estuary fringe and RMAs 

outside of TTRA buffers within these same LUDs. However, young-growth 

harvest in the Old-growth Habitat LUD, beach and estuary fringe, and RMAs 

outside of TTRA buffers would be allowed only during the first 15 years after Plan 

approval, and created openings for commercial harvest (up to 10 acres and a 

maximum removal of up to 35 percent of the acres of the original harvested 

stand) or commercial thinning would be allowed. In beach and estuary fringe, a 

200-foot no-commercial harvest buffer adjacent to the shoreline would be 

required. Along lake shorelines, a 100-foot no-cut commercial harvest buffer 

would be established. Scenery standards (SIOs) for young growth management 

would be reduced to Very Low for all distance zones in the development LUDs 

only. This standard would also apply when young-growth and old-growth 

harvests are planned in the same Viewshed. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young-growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to 

be flexible under exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves 

flexibility in renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO 

(scenery standard) for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs 

and distance zones. 

Alternative 5 would provide the second smallest amount of timber volume (old 

growth and young growth combined) among the alternatives, but the second 

largest amount of old-growth volume among the action alternatives. Table 2-14 

summarizes the key elements of Alternative 5 and Table 2-15 summarizes the 

LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this 

alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It 

would emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 

MMBF per year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 12 

MMBF of young growth and 34 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 

years (Figure 2-9). From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an 

average of 28 MMBF of young growth and about 18 MMBF of old growth per 

year. Alternative 5 would likely reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of 

young growth about Year 16. Young-growth harvest is expected to continue to 

increase at a rapid rate after Year 16 and is expected to reach an upper limit of 

 

3

 The Tongass 77 (T77) refers to value comparison units (VCUs), which approximate 

major watersheds located on National Forest System lands that Trout Unlimited, Alaska 

Program identified as priority salmon watersheds. As a result of the Sealaska Land 

Entitlement Finalization in the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), there was a net 

reduction in the T77 watersheds from 77 to 73. To provide clarity and consistency, the 

T77 nomenclature will continue to be used in this document when referring to these 

priority watersheds. 
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary ES-12 Final EIS

98 MMBF about Year 18. The old-growth harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF 

per year to support small and micro sales. 

Comparison of the Alternatives 

This section briefly compares the environmental consequences of the five 

alternatives with respect to the significant issues described in Chapter 1. This 

comparison is based on the effects analyses presented in Chapter 3. 

Issue 1 – Young-growth Transition 

The purpose and need for this project is primarily based on a memorandum from 

the Secretary of Agriculture (see Chapter 1) that directs management of the 

Tongass National Forest to expedite the transition away from old-growth timber 

harvesting and towards a forest products industry that utilizes predominantly 

second-growth – or young-growth – forests. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum 

also guides that the transition should be implemented in a manner that preserves 

a viable timber industry that provides jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska 

residents. USDA's goal is to effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 

years, so that at the end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the 

Tongass will be young growth. This timeframe will conserve old growth forests 

while allowing the forest industry time to adapt. 

Because of the Secretary’s memorandum, the existing condition emphasizes a 

transition to young growth and minimizes old-growth harvest, but does this within 

the constraints of the 2008 Forest Plan. Alternative 1 (no action) would result in 

full transition to a predominantly young-growth-based industry in about 32 years, 

well beyond the 15 year goal presented in the Secretary’s memorandum. In 

contrast, all of the action alternatives would result in a full transition in about 12 to 

16 years. Because these timeframes represent full transition, the period in which 

the “vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth” is 

expected to be about 10 to 15 years for the action alternatives. Of the action 

alternatives, the fastest transition (12 years) would occur with Alternative 2 and 

the slowest transition (16 years) would occur with Alternatives 4 and 5. 

All of the alternatives are expected to support from 184 to 231 annualized direct 

jobs during the first decade, depending on the portion of total harvest that is 

exported. Total estimated jobs are very similar across the alternatives, with the 

highest number of direct jobs supported by Alternative 2 and the lowest number 

of direct jobs supported by Alternative 1. In addition, each alternative is expected 

to meet the projected demand for Tongass timber. Therefore, each alternative is 

expected to meet the criterion of maintaining a viable industry. However, it is 

unclear how quickly industry will be able to “retool” mills and harvesting 

equipment and how markets will react to changing from old-growth to younggrowth forest products; thus, this criterion is associated with a relatively high 

degree of uncertainty. 

Under all alternatives, the harvest of old growth would diminish over time and the 

harvest of young growth would increase. Therefore, all of the alternatives would 

“conserve old-growth forests.” The largest old-growth harvest in the first 25 

years would be about 39,000 acres with Alternative 1. Each of the action 

alternatives would harvest less old growth, ranging from 15,000 acres with 

Alternative 2 to 24,000 acres with Alternative 5. The same pattern among the 

alternatives occurs with the 100-year harvest as well. 
Executive Summary 

Final EIS ES-13 Executive Summary

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy 

Another important part of the purpose and need for this project is the purpose of 

establishing new direction in the Forest Plan so that renewable energy 

development is more permissible. There is a need to stimulate economic 

development in Southeast Alaska communities, and provide low-carbon energy 

alternatives, thereby displacing the use of fossil fuel. Under the 2008 Forest 

Plan, siting of energy projects is limited in certain LUDs, and it would remain that 

way under Alternative 1. Under each of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 

4, and 5), changes would be made to the Forest Plan that would result in 

improved flexibility in siting and development of renewable energy projects. 

Issue 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 IRAs are withdrawn from timber production and 

not suitable for timber production (FSH 1909.12, chapter 60, section 61.11). In 

Alternative 2, IRAs that were previously roaded would be available for road 

construction and timber harvest and in Alternative 3, all IRAs would be available 

for road construction and timber harvest. In both Alternatives 2 and 3, entry into 

IRAs would not be permitted without rulemaking or, in the case of Alternative 3, if 

the 2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 75136) is reinstated. Estimated acres of 

timber harvest in IRAs over 100 years would range from 0 acres for Alternatives 

1, 4, and 5, to 11,000 acres for Alternative 2, to 29,000 acres for Alternative 3. 

The protection of roadless characteristics would be directly proportional to the 

projected acres of timber harvest with Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 providing the most 

protection, Alternative 2 providing the second most protection, and Alternative 3 

providing the least protection. 

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy 

Relative to old-growth habitat conservation, Alternative 1 would have the highest 

harvest (1.3 percent of existing POG), followed by Alternative 4 (0.9 percent of 

existing POG), followed by Alternative 5 (0.8 percent of existing POG), followed 

by Alternatives 2 and 3 (0.7 percent of existing POG). The change in the percent 

of original POG remaining after 100 years would follow the same pattern. 

Currently, 92 percent of original POG is remaining; under all alternatives this 

percentage would drop by about 1 percent after 100 years. Alternative 1 would 

result in about 90 percent remaining and the action alternatives would each result 

in about 91 percent remaining. This same pattern would continue for the percent 

reduction in high-volume POG. The existing 86 percent of original high-volume 

POG remaining would be reduced to about 85 percent for all alternatives after 

100 years. For large-tree POG, about 79 percent of the original acres exist. 

Alternative 1 would result in about 78 percent remaining after 100 years, while 

the action alternatives would maintain about 79 percent. 

Young-growth harvest in the beach and estuary fringe would be lowest under 

Alternative 1 (no harvest). Under the action alternatives, no harvest of POG 

would occur, but impacts resulting from young growth harvest would be highest 

under Alternative 2, which would include the second highest amount of younggrowth acres and would allow clearcutting. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, 

considerable young-growth acreage would be harvested, but using commercial 

thinning, which would result in less effects than clearcutting. Alternative 5 would 

have the lowest effect on beach and estuary fringe among the action alternatives 

because young-growth acreage would be lowest and only patch cutting (with 

created openings up to 10 acres and a maximum removal of up to 35 percent of 

the acres of the original harvested stand) or commercial thinning would be 
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary ES-14 Final EIS

allowed and only during the first 15 years after Forest Plan approval with a onetime entry restriction. 

For RMAs, the lowest effects would be associated with Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, 

which would permit no harvest in RMAs. Alternative 2 would have the greatest 

harvest impacts in RMAs because it would include the highest amount of 

acreage and would allow clearcutting during the first 15 years of Forest Plan 

approval and commercial thinning thereafter. Effects to RMAs would be lower 

under Alternative 5 due to a lower amount of acres harvested and only patch 

cutting or commercial thinning would be permitted and only during the first 15 

years after Forest Plan approval with a one-time entry restriction. 

In the Old-growth Habitat LUD, Alternatives 1 and 4 would allow no young-growth 

harvest. The greatest amount of young-growth harvest in the Old-growth Habitat 

LUD would occur under Alternative 2, followed by Alternatives 3 and 5. Effects 

would be greatest under Alternative 2 because it would allow clearcutting and 

have the largest harvest acreage, and less under Alternative 3 because only 

commercial thinning would be allowed, followed by Alternative 5 which would 

allow only patch cutting or thinning and only during the first 15 years after Forest 

Plan approval and with a one-time entry restriction. 

Average total road density across the Forest (NFS lands only) under all 

alternatives would be approximately 0.23 mile per square mile after 100 years, 

an increase of 0.03 to 0.04 mile per square mile above existing levels. 

Approximately 83 percent of WAAs would have total road densities ranging 

between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square mile under all alternatives. Total roads are 

conservatively defined to include open roads, closed roads, and decommissioned 

roads. Average open road density across the Forest (NFS lands only) would be 

approximately 0.09 mile per square mile, an increase of approximately 0.005 mile 

per square mile under all alternatives. Approximately 96 percent of WAAs would 

have open road densities ranging between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square mile 

under all alternatives. Therefore, any potential increase in hunter access or risk 

of overharvest for wildlife species would be minor and localized, and would not 

be measurable at the forest-wide scale under any of the alternatives. 

The transition to young-growth management would slow the long-term decrease 

in deer habitat capability due to the reduction in POG harvest. Based on 

Interagency Deer Habitat Capability model outputs, deer habitat capability under 

all of the alternatives would decline about 1 percent over 100 years. Forest-wide 

all alternatives would maintain about 99 percent of the existing deer habitat 

capability. Results based on the Forage Resource Evaluation System for Deer 

(or FRESH deer model) are very similar; Forest-wide, the existing level of habitat 

quality would be decline about 1 percent after 100 years under all alternatives. 

Cumulative POG harvest on all landownerships would be greatest under 

Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 (in that order). Cumulative 

effects would be least under the alternatives that propose the shortest younggrowth transition time. After 100 years of Forest Plan implementation and nonNFS harvests, approximately 83 percent of the original (1954) total POG forest, 

about 76 percent of the original high-volume POG, and 63 to 64 percent of the 

original large-tree POG would be maintained on all landownerships under all of 

the alternatives. 

Cumulative road densities (all land ownerships) would be similar among 

alternatives (about 0.45 mile per square mile), representing an increase of about 

0.11 to 0.12 miles per square mile above current conditions. Open road 

densities for all land ownerships would increase from about 0.22 mile per square 

mile to about 0.24 mile per square mile after 100 years under all alternatives. 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-1 Purpose and Need

Chapter 1.

Purpose and Need

Introduction

Forest land and resource management planning is a process for developing, 

amending, and revising land and resource management plans for each of the 

National Forests in the National Forest System (NFS). Forest plans are required 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] parts 1600-1687). The 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forest was 

the first forest to complete a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

under the NFMA in 1979. That Forest Plan was amended in 1986 and 1991 and

revised in 1997. A final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

was completed in 2003, which further evaluated roadless areas for their 

wilderness potential. The Forest Plan was amended again in 2008 in response 

to a Ninth Circuit Court ruling and a 5-Year Plan Review completed in 2005. The 

revised Plan was amended 24 times between the 1997 revision and the 2008 

amendment, primarily to adjust small old-growth habitat reserve boundaries and 

for electronic/communication site designations. Since the 2008 amendment, the 

plan has been amended to establish the Héen Latinee Experimental Forest, 

disestablish the Young Bay Experimental Forest, add communication sites to the 

list in Appendix E, modify small old-growth habitat reserves, and make minor 

corrections to the plan.

On July 2, 2013, Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, issued Memorandum 

1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2013), which expressed the Secretary’s intent

to transition the Tongass National Forest to a young growth–based timber 

program in 10 to 15 years, more rapidly than considered in the 2008 Forest Plan. 

The Secretary asked that the Forest Service “[s]trongly consider whether to 

pursue an amendment to the Tongass Forest Plan. Such an amendment would 

evaluate which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially young growth 

timber stands, which lands should be excluded, and additional opportunities to 

promote and speed transition to young-growth management.” Recognizing the 

importance of retaining expertise and infrastructure, the Secretary also stated 

that the Forest Service “will continue to offer a supply of old growth timber while 

increasing the supply of young growth to provide industry in Alaska the 

opportunity to develop new markets, learn new skills, and acquire new 

equipment.” The Secretary also asked that a determination of whether to initiate 

an amendment be completed by September 30, 2013.

The Forest Service completed a Five-Year Review of the Forest Plan in 

September 2013. The results of the Five-Year Review and the Secretary’s 

Memorandum led to the Tongass Forest Supervisor making a determination that 

“...conditions on the land and demands of the public require the Tongass to 

modify the 2008 Forest Plan” (USDA Forest Service 2013a). A Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2014 

(79 Federal Register [FR] 30074) initiating a 30-day scoping period. Among the 

comments from the Five-Year Review and from scoping were those that
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-2 Final EIS

requested a transition to young-growth timber harvesting, ways to make 

renewable energy projects easier to implement, and a review of the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) inventoried roadless areas 

(IRAs). All comments were taken into consideration in identifying the scope of 

this Forest Plan amendment.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is a programmatic analysis 

prepared by the Forest Service that describes and analyzes changes to the 

Forest Plan to accomplish the transition to young-growth management as 

provided in the Secretary’s Memorandum. This FEIS evaluates which lands will 

be suitable for timber production, especially young-growth timber stands, and any 

changes or additions to management direction needed to promote and speed the 

transition to young-growth management while maintaining a viable timber 

industry in Southeast Alaska. This FEIS also describes and analyzes changes 

related to renewable energy development. The scope of the analysis is limited to 

these changes. 

This FEIS analyzes in detail four action alternatives for amending the Plan, in 

addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). The analysis is published in 

two volumes. Volume 1 contains the FEIS, and Volume 2 contains the FEIS 

appendices. A complete Forest Plan Land Use Designation (LUD) map is 

provided for each of the alternatives in the Map Packet which accompanies the 

FEIS.

A separate document titled Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (i.e., 

the Forest Plan) is published along with the FEIS and represents the selected 

alternative (Alternative 5). Chapter 2 and Appendix F in the FEIS describe how 

the other alternatives compare to Alternative 5. Instead of repeating all of the 

changes in management direction common to Alternatives 1-4 and Alternative 5, 

management direction of the alternatives is displayed in a side-by-side 

comparative format to demonstrate how and where direction differs from 

Alternative 5.

This FEIS describes and analyzes changes to the 2008 Forest Plan and tiers to

and incorporates by reference the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan 

Revision FEIS (1997 FEIS), the 2003 Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for 

Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations (2003 FSEIS), and the 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment FEIS (2008 

FEIS), and the 2008 Record of Decision (2008 ROD). Where appropriate, 

information in these documents that is relevant to analysis in this FEIS is cited and 

incorporated by reference.

Forest Planning History on the 

Tongass National Forest

The NFMA, enacted in 1976, requires each national forest to develop a land and 

resource management plan and revise its plan every 10 to 15 years. The 

Tongass became the first National Forest to complete a Forest Plan under NFMA 

in April 1979. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

was signed into law December 2, 1980 (Public Law 96-187) and provided varying 

degrees of protection to over 157,000,000 acres of public lands in Alaska, 

including NFS lands. The 1979 Forest Plan was amended in 1986, reflecting 

changes mandated by ANILCA. The Forest Plan revision process began in 1987 

and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in June 1990. 

On November 28, 1990, the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) (Public Law 

101-626) was enacted. The TTRA amended ANILCA to protect certain lands in 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-3 Purpose and Need

the Tongass National Forest in perpetuity, to modify certain long-term timber 

contracts, to provide for protection of riparian habitat, and for other purposes. 

The 1979 Forest Plan was amended in February 1991 to incorporate the TTRA 

changes. The Forest Plan revision process continued with a Supplement to the

DEIS published in September 1991, which incorporated all changes required by 

TTRA and evaluated new alternatives. Following completion of the June 1990 

DEIS, TTRA designated five new wilderness areas and incorporated additional 

acres into an existing wilderness area. Therefore, the Forest Service did not 

reconsider roadless areas for potential wilderness recommendation. The Forest 

Service prepared an FEIS in the fall of 1992, but did not publish an associated 

ROD. The Regional Forester found there was new information that should be 

collected to respond to the 1982 National Forest Planning Regulations (36 Code 

of Federal Regulations [CFR] 219.19 (1982)). That process led to the 1997 FEIS 

and the Forest Plan Revision ROD (1997 ROD).

The 1997 Forest Plan was the subject of 33 appeals by organizations and 

individuals. In 1999, the Under Secretary of Agriculture affirmed the Regional 

Forester’s decision regarding all 33 appeals, based on the 1997 Tongass Forest 

Plan Revision FEIS and planning record. The Under Secretary issued a new 

ROD (1999 ROD) for the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision.

Two lawsuits challenged the 1997 and 1999 RODs in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Alaska. The Alaska Forest Association and some Southeast 

Alaska communities challenged many aspects of the 1997 Plan and the process 

by which the 1999 ROD was issued. The Sierra Club and other conservation 

groups challenged the lack of wilderness area consideration and potential 

recommendations in the 1997 Plan Revision FEIS and ROD. The Court issued a 

single opinion for both cases in March 2001.

In the Alaska Forest Association case (Alaska Forest Association v. United 

States Department of Agriculture No. J99-0013 CV [JKS] [D. Alaska]), the U.S. 

District Court upheld the 1997 ROD against all challenges, but held that the 1999 

ROD was not properly adopted. The Court vacated the 1999 ROD and enjoined 

the Forest Service from implementation. The Court further directed the Forest 

Service to prepare a SEIS addressing the changes from the 1997 Tongass 

Forest Plan. Because of the extensive public involvement and scientific review in 

the 1997 ROD, and its thorough policy and legal review of the administrative 

appeal process and by the District Court, the Forest Service did not propose 

changes to the 1997 ROD similar to those enjoined by the District Court. 

In the Sierra Club challenge of the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan Revision FEIS 

(Sierra Club v. Lyons, No. J00-0009 CV [JKS] [D. Alaska]), the Ninth Circuit 

Court found the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan should have considered making 

wilderness recommendations in the FEIS. The Court ordered the Forest Service 

to prepare a SEIS evaluating wilderness recommendations for roadless areas on 

the Tongass and provide the relative contribution to the National Wilderness

Preservation System in its Analysis of the Management Situation. The Forest 

Service issued a Final SEIS and ROD for Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness 

Recommendations in February 2003, and no new wilderness areas were 

recommended in the ROD.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit (referred to as 

NRDC I) in the U.S. District Court of Alaska in December 2003 challenging the 

1997 Forest Plan and six timber sales. In January 2004, the NRDC filed a 

separate lawsuit on a seventh timber sale (referred to as NRDC II) and another 

lawsuit challenging an eighth sale in March 2004 (referred to as NRDC III). The 

District Court upheld the 1997 Forest Plan ROD and related National 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-4 Final EIS

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents on all claims in September 2004. 

NRDC appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth 

Circuit Court issued a ruling on NRDC I and NRDC II in August 2005 (Natural

Resources Defense Council, et al., v. United States Forest Service, et al., 421 

F.3d 797 [9th Cir.2005])). The Court found inadequacies primarily relating to the 

NEPA process for the 1997 Forest Plan. These inadequacies dealt with the 

timber demand estimates, the range of alternatives related to timber demand, 

and the cumulative effects analysis related to activities on non-NFS lands. While 

this process was taking place, the Forest completed a Five-Year Review of the 

Forest Plan. This review identified a number of items that could lead to 

adjustments to the Plan.

The 2008 Forest Plan was the subject of 15 appeals by organizations and 

individuals; however, one of those appeals was subsequently dismissed because 

its content did not meet the requirements of appeals (36 CFR 217.9). In August 

2008, the Chief of the Forest Service affirmed the Regional Forester’s decision 

regarding all appeals. 

On May 24, 2011, the Alaska District Court vacated the Tongass exemption1 and 

reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass National Forest (Organized 

Village of Kake, et al. v. USDA, et al.). As a result, the Tongass National Forest 

was subject to the provisions of the 2001 Roadless Rule. The State of Alaska 

subsequently appealed the District Court’s decision and the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the 

lower court for further consideration. On July 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals issued its en banc decision in Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, 11-35517, upholding the Alaska District Court’s reinstatement of the 

Roadless Rule. Thus, the Tongass has been subject to the Roadless Rule since 

2011 and remains so today.

The 2012 planning rule for land management planning for the National Forest 

System was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2012 (77 FR 21162),

and it became effective on May 9, 2012. It was developed through the most 

collaborative rulemaking effort in Agency history to ensure an adaptive land 

management planning process that is inclusive, efficient, collaborative and 

science-based to promote healthy, resilient, diverse and productive National 

Forests and Grasslands. In January 2015, the Forest Service published the final 

planning directives, the key set of agency guidance documents that direct 

implementation of the 2012 planning rule.

This proposed plan amendment was developed under the provisions in the 2012 

Rule and changes made to the 2008 Forest Plan are presented in Chapter 5 of 

the proposed Forest Plan. Only those changes that were made to the 2008 

Forest Plan are described and analyzed in this FEIS.

Factors That Led to the Need for 

Change

Since approval of the Forest Plan in January 2008, management of the Tongass 

National Forest has been very challenging due to a number of factors, including 

administrative and judicial proceedings. Many of these factors were highlighted 

as concerns in the Five-Year Review of the Forest Plan (36 CFR 219.10(g) 

 1 The Roadless Rule was promulgated by the Department of Agriculture in 2001, limiting road 

construction and timber harvest in Inventoried Roadless Areas. In 2003, the Department exempted 

the Tongass from the rule (68 FR 75136). 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-5 Purpose and Need

(1982)) that was conducted in 2013 (USDA Forest Service 2013h). Based on the 

Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan and challenges in carrying out projects 

since 2008, the Tongass Forest Supervisor determined that conditions on the 

land and demands of the public require the Tongass to change the 2008 Forest 

Plan (USDA 2013i). He also determined that stakeholder input would be used for 

making changes to forest management on the Tongass. This section provides 

the context for the factors that led to a need for change.

Roadless area conservation 

In January 2001, USDA published the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 

CFR 294 Subpart B), which generally prohibits cutting trees and building roads in 

inventoried roadless areas on NFS lands. Since its adoption in 2001, the 

Roadless Rule has been the subject of litigation concerning how it is to be 

applied to the Tongass. Stakeholders with an interest in these lands, such as 

utility companies, timber and mining interests, and local communities, have 

raised questions about how the Roadless Rule will affect permits, contracts and 

other special uses involving access, road construction and road maintenance in 

inventoried roadless areas within Alaska’s National Forests. The State of Alaska 

in 2001 filed a complaint in the United States District Court, District of Alaska, 

challenging the application of the Roadless Rule to the Chugach and Tongass 

National Forests. The Forest Service and the State of Alaska reached a 

settlement in 2003, and the Forest Service then published a rule temporarily 

exempting the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Rule (68 FR 75136). 

In May 2011, the Alaska District Court vacated the Tongass exemption and 

reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass National Forest (Organized 

Village of Kake, et al. v. USDA, et al.). After additional judicial proceedings, the 

Ninth Circuit Court issued an en banc decision in Organized Village of Kake v. 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 11-35517, upholding the Alaska District Court’s 

reinstatement of the Roadless Rule. In another court case, the State of Alaska 

has challenged the Roadless Rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia. Briefing in that case is currently being adjudicated. Thus, the Tongass 

has been subject to the Roadless Rule since 2011 and remains so today. 

Litigation

Timber harvesting is one of the many uses of the Tongass, and the timber 

resource is managed to produce sawtimber and other wood products on lands 

identified as suitable for timber production on an even-flow, long-term sustained 

yield basis and in an economically efficient manner. Harvest of old-growth trees 

has become increasingly controversial. Since 2008, litigation filed on individual 

Tongass timber sales is hindering the ability of the Forest to accomplish the 

objective of providing a reliable Federal timber supply. The decline in timber sale 

volume between 2008 and 2012 is based on a variety of factors including 

demand, economic conditions, harvest costs, policy changes and litigation. 

Annual harvest volumes averaged 36 MMBF between 2002 and 2014 (USDA 

Forest Service 2015a).

Collaboration

The Forest Service prepared the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment and the 

associated EIS in response to the Ninth Circuit court’s decision (Natural 

Resources Defense Council, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-35868) and in 

response to the Five-Year Review of the 1997 Forest Plan that was completed in 

early 2005, which recommended several updates to the Plan. In the fall of 2006, 

while work was underway on the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment, The 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-6 Final EIS

Nature Conservancy formed the Tongass Futures Roundtable in an effort to bring 

stakeholders together to find practical solutions for industry, the Forest Service, 

communities, and conservation. The Roundtable brought together a diverse 

group of people and organizations long active in Tongass policy matters with the 

ultimate goal of developing consensus recommendations regarding where timber 

harvest should be allowed on the Tongass, and where timber harvest should be 

prohibited. The Roundtable also supported more diversified and sustainable 

local economies in communities across Southeast Alaska, including efforts to 

reduce the high energy costs that impede economic diversification by promoting 

development of renewable energy in communities that currently depend on diesel 

generators to provide electrical power. Although the Roundtable dissolved in 

2011, several important relationships were established that laid the groundwork 

for the “Transition Framework” discussed below. Building on the efforts of the 

Roundtable, including supporting more diversified and sustainable economies in 

the communities of Southeast Alaska, representatives of the Forest Service, 

USDA Rural Development, and the Economic Development Administration 

conducted a series of listening sessions in the fall of 2009 in all 32 communities 

in Southeast Alaska to solicit ways to stimulate job creation and economic 

diversification throughout the region.

The 2008 Forest Plan decision acknowledged the “...expected increase in 

young-growth management over the next few planning cycles...and the 

increasing public interest in this conversion, which will ultimately reduce the need 

for old-growth timber resources and the associated need for development in 

roadless areas” (USDA 2008a). In 2010, the Forest Service, in partnership with 

other agencies within the USDA, announced a “Transition Framework” for 

Southeast Alaska (Alexander et al. 2010). The Transition Framework was 

developed as a strategy for developing economic opportunities in renewable 

energy, forest restoration, fisheries and mariculture, tourism and recreation, and 

subsistence. The goal of the Transition Framework is to conserve the Tongass 

National Forest while providing economic opportunity and stability to Southeast 

Alaska communities. The high cost of energy was soon identified as a major 

barrier to sustainable economic development in the region. As the Transition 

Framework continued to progress in 2011, the USDA agencies, working with the 

Juneau Economic Development Council, collaborated with over 120 business 

and community leaders to develop economic diversification initiatives through the 

creation of business clusters that, by 2013, included clusters for Ocean Products, 

Visitor Products, Renewable Energy, Mining Services and Supply, and Research 

and Development, as well as the Working Forest Group to address timber 

management issues.

2012 Planning Rule 

While these collaborative efforts were underway in Southeast Alaska, the USDA 

was also pursuing similar approaches for planning across the National Forest 

System. These efforts resulted in publishing the 2012 planning rule for land 

management planning on April 9, 2012 (77 FR 21162). The 2012 Planning Rule 

was developed through the most collaborative rulemaking effort in Agency history 

to ensure an adaptive land management planning process that is inclusive and 

science-based to promote healthy, National Forests and Grasslands. In addition, 

the Secretary of Agriculture established an advisory committee under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide recommendations on how to carry out 

the Planning Rule. 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-7 Purpose and Need

Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan

In 2013, the Tongass conducted a Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan to 

provide the Forest Supervisor with insight into views about the Forest Plan and 

projects carried out under the plan to assist in determining whether any actions 

are needed to change the plan. As part of this review, the results from and data 

evaluated in the Monitoring and Evaluation Reports (2008 to 2012) was 

considered. The Tongass staff engaged internal and external stakeholders and 

the public to obtain feedback on how the plan is working since 2008 (i.e., what is 

working well, what is not working, what is not addressed in the plan, whether 

changes are needed), and held public meetings in seven communities in 

Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest Service, 2013h). There were 152,182 

comments submitted by individual citizens, Federal and state agencies, tribal 

governments, local governments, businesses, special interest groups, and nongovernmental organizations. The comment period generated 3,104 coded 

comments, which were grouped into 24 Statement of Concern (SOC) Topics. 

The five SOC Topics with the most comments received were: 1) Tongass 

National Forest Management issues (644); 2) Timber (323); 3) Land Use 

Designations (285); 4) Socio-economics (281); and 5) Energy (239). 

Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1044-009 

It was in the context of sustained collaborative efforts to promote more 

sustainable economic diversification and a more sustainable timber management 

program on the Tongass National Forest that the Secretary of Agriculture issued 

Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska, 

on July 2, 2013. The memorandum focused on speeding the transition to 

management of second-growth (previously harvested) forests. In addition to 

speeding the transition to management of second-growth, the memorandum 

references the increased support USDA had provided over the previous three 

years under the Transition Framework to support “alternative economic 

development opportunities for communities across the region in the recreation, 

tourism, fishing and renewable energy sectors,” and directs such collaborative 

efforts to continue “to help strengthen and diversify local economies.”

An outgrowth of the Transition Framework, the Secretary’s memorandum directs 

management of the Tongass National Forest to “expedite the transition away 

from old-growth timber harvesting and towards a forest products industry that 

uses predominantly second-growth – or young-growth – forests.” It also affirmed 

that “this transition to a more ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable 

forest management is a high priority for USDA, the Forest Service, and the 

Tongass National Forest.” The memorandum directs the transition to be carried 

out in a manner that preserves a viable timber industry that provides jobs and 

opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents, with the goal of carrying out the 

transition over the next 10 to 15 years, so that at the end of this period the vast 

majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth. It also directed the 

Forest Service to continue working with Congress to provide some flexibility with 

regard to culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirements, which is 

essential to permit the development of economically viable young growth projects 

within the timeframe set as a goal for the transition. The Secretary’s 

memorandum also announced that USDA would establish an advisory committee 

under the FACA to provide recommendations to the Forest Service on ways to 

expedite the young-growth transition. In February 2014, this committee was 

designated as the Tongass Advisory Committee (TAC). 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-8 Final EIS

Congressional Action

In December 2014, Congress passed legislation – Carl Levin and Howard P. 

“Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 – that 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to allow the harvest of trees before the 

culmination of mean annual increment of growth to facilitate the transition from 

timber harvest of old growth stands. 

Change Determination

After completion of the Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan, the Tongass 

Forest Supervisor concluded that conditions on the land and demands of the 

public had changed and therefore the Tongass National Forest should make 

changes to the Forest Plan (USDA 2013). Concerns were consistently 

expressed during the Five-Year Review about the impact of high fossil fuel 

prices; the adverse effect of high energy costs on economic diversification and 

sustainable economic development; and increasing climate change on the quality 

of life in Southeast Alaska. Concerns were also expressed that the 2008 Plan’s 

direction regarding transportation and utility systems (TUS), including the TUS 

overlay LUD, were overly complex, confusing, and difficult to implement, creating 

an impediment to development of hydropower, other types of renewable energy, 

and transmission lines needed to connect communities to sources of electric 

power. Based on this review, the Forest Supervisor determined to propose 

changes to the Forest Plan to make the development of renewable energy 

resources more permissible – including allowing greater project-level 

consideration of transportation and utility corridors and removing the TUS LUD –

to stimulate renewable energy development in Southeast Alaska communities, 

provide low-carbon energy alternatives, and reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Purpose and Need

Purpose 

The Forest Service determined that it is necessary to amend the 2008 Forest 

Plan. Amending the Forest Plan originates from the July 2013 memo from the 

Secretary of Agriculture directing the Tongass National Forest to transition its 

forest management program to be more ecologically, socially, and economically 

sustainable, while also being responsive to comments from the Five-Year Review

of the Forest Plan. The purpose of this plan amendment is to:

• Review lands within the plan area to determine suitability for timber 

production, especially young-growth timber stands.

• Identify the projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ) and the sustained yield 

limit (i.e., the ecological yield of timber that can be removed annually on a 

sustained yield basis).

• Establish plan components (e.g., standards and guidelines) for young-growth 

forest management and renewable energy development to guide future 

project decision-making.

• Consolidate modifications made to the Forest Plan since its approval.

Need

An amendment is necessary for responding to the July 2013 direction from 

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined in the Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-9 Purpose and Need

009. The memorandum directs management of the Tongass National Forest to 

expedite the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting and towards a 

forest products industry that uses predominantly second-growth – or younggrowth – forests. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum also directs that the 

transition must be implemented in a manner that preserves a viable timber 

industry that provides jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. 

USDA's goal is to effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 years, so that 

at the end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be 

young growth. This timeframe will conserve old-growth forests while allowing the 

forest industry time to adapt. The 2008 Forest Plan provides for a transition to 

young growth over time, but there are challenges in establishing an economically 

viable young-growth forest management program due to the relatively young age 

of the available stands, market conditions, and other factors. Secretary Vilsack’s 

direction requires Forest Plan amendments to guide future management of NFS

lands and allocation of resources on the Tongass National Forest under the 

multiple-use and sustained yield mandate. 

The need to amend the plan is further corroborated by the Five-Year Review of 

the Forest Plan, completed in 2013, which concluded that conditions on the land 

and demands of the public necessitate the Tongass National Forest to make 

changes to the Forest Plan. Concerns were consistently expressed during the 

Five-Year Review regarding the impact of rising fossil fuel prices and increasing 

climate change on the quality of life in Southeast Alaska. Changes to the Forest 

Plan are needed to make the development of renewable energy resources more 

permissible, including considering access and utility corridors to stimulate 

economic development in Southeast Alaska communities, and provide lowcarbon energy alternatives, thereby displacing the use of fossil fuel.

Forest Location and Description

The 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forest (Tongass or Forest) occupies 

about 7 percent of the area of Alaska. The Tongass is located in the 

southeastern portion of the state (the area commonly called the panhandle of 

Alaska or Southeast Alaska) and extends from Dixon Entrance in the south to 

Yakutat Bay in the north, and is bordered on the east by Canada and on the west 

by the Gulf of Alaska. The Tongass extends approximately 500 miles north to 

south and approximately 120 miles east to west at its widest point. Figure 1-1 is 

a vicinity map of the Forest. 

The Tongass includes a narrow mainland strip of steep, rugged mountains and 

icefields and more than 1,000 offshore islands known as the Alexander 

Archipelago. Together, the islands and mainland have nearly 11,000 miles of 

meandering shoreline, with numerous bays and coves. A system of seaways 

separates the many islands and provides a protected waterway called the Inside 

Passage. Federal lands comprise about 95 percent of Southeast Alaska, with 

about 80 percent in the Tongass National Forest and most of the rest in Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve. The remaining land is held in state, Native 

corporations, and other private ownerships. 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-10 Final EIS

Figure 1-1. 

Tongass National Forest Vicinity Map
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-11 Purpose and Need

Most of the area of the Tongass is undeveloped. Approximately 74,000 people 

inhabit Southeast Alaska, primarily in 32 communities located on islands or 

mainland coastal areas. Only eight of the communities have populations greater 

than 1,000 persons. Most of these communities are surrounded by, or adjacent 

to, NFS land. Only three communities are connected to other parts of the 

mainland by road: Haines and Skagway in the north and Hyder in the southeast. 

In December 2014, the President signed into law the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 

Law 113-291). Title XXX, subtitle A, sec. 3002 of this law contains provisions to 

convey nearly 70,000 acres of NFS land in the Tongass to Sealaska, a regional 

Native corporation; change the land allocation of over 150,000 acres to 

“conservation areas” or LUD II; and allow for the harvest of trees prior to the 

culmination of mean annual increment of growth to facilitate the transition away 

from commercial timber harvest of old-growth stands among other provisions. 

Public Issues

The economies of Southeast Alaska’s communities rely on the Tongass National 

Forest to provide natural resources for uses such as fishing, timber harvesting, 

recreation, tourism, mining, and subsistence. Maintaining the abundant natural 

resources of the Forest, while providing opportunities for their use, is a major 

concern of Southeast Alaska residents. 

Ranger District offices on the Tongass National Forest are located in Yakutat, 

Juneau, Hoonah, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Thorne Bay, Craig, and Ketchikan. 

There are also two National Monuments; Admiralty Island is managed by a 

Monument Ranger who shares an office in Juneau with the Juneau District 

Ranger and Misty Fiords managed by the Ketchikan District Ranger in Ketchikan 

(Figure 1-1). 

Public Participation

As explained in the Factors That Led to the Need for Change section above, the 

Tongass has been encouraging meaningful public input and involvement in 

development of the Forest Plan. After completion of the Five-Year Review of the 

2008 Forest Plan in 2013, the Tongass Forest Supervisor determined that 

conditions on the land and demands of the public had changed and therefore the 

Tongass National Forest should make changes to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2013h).

In February 2014, the USDA established the charter for a Federal Advisory 

Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to advise the 

Secretary and Chief on transitioning the Tongass to young-growth forest 

management. This committee, known as the TAC, included members

representing federally recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native corporations, 

conservation organizations, timber industry, state and local governments, and 

other interests.

An NOI to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30074) initiating a 30-day public 

scoping period. The Forest Service requested public comments concerning the 

scope of the analysis until June 26, 2014. The Forest Service received 

approximately 124,000 letters and of these, 250 letters were unique. Comments 

and information from a wide variety of commenters including Forest Service 

personnel, public, other federal, state and local agencies, and non-governmental 

organizations were considered. 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-12 Final EIS

Identification of issues helps define or predict the resources or uses that could be 

most affected by the management of NFS lands. These issues are used as a 

basis to formulate management alternatives or to measure differences between 

alternatives. 

Public involvement activities that have taken place since May 2014 include the 

following:

• An NOI to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 

2014 (79 FR 30074) initiating a 30-day public scoping period. The Forest 

Service requested public comments concerning the scope of the analysis 

until June 26, 2014. The Forest Service received approximately 124,000 

letters and of these, 250 letters were unique. Comments and information 

from a wide variety of commenters including Forest Service personnel, 

public, other federal, state and local agencies, and non-governmental 

organizations were considered. These comments are included in the 

Planning Record.

• The responsible official encouraged federal and state agencies and local 

governments to participate in the forest planning effort as cooperating 

agencies. On September 9, 2014, the Forest Service invited the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency, State of 

Alaska, and all federally recognized Indian Tribes in Southeast Alaska. Of 

those invited, the USFWS accepted cooperating status with respect to the 

Forest Plan Amendment and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with the Forest Service in February 2015.

• A Forest Plan Amendment Web site was developed in September 2014 and 

has been maintained to inform and engage the public since then. It is 

updated as new information is developed or published and provides a 

mechanism for public input. This site can be accessed at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R10/Tongass/PlanAmend

• The responsible official encouraged participation from youth. Since 

December 2014, members from the plan amendment interdisciplinary team 

(IDT) have been engaging a youth advisory council comprised of high school 

students from the Ketchikan High School. The Forest Service wanted to 

expose young people to natural resource management on the Tongass, as 

well as engaging them in the public involvement process so their voices can 

be heard. The youth advisory council provided written comments on the 

Proposed Forest Plan and DEIS.

• On November 13, 2015, the responsible official provided to the Alaska Native 

Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations the opportunity to consult on a 

Government-to-Government and Government-to-Corporation level and 

inviting them provide input on the Proposed Forest Plan and associated 

DEIS and they were provided document access prior to the publication of the 

notice of availability (NOA) of the DEIS in the Federal Register on November 

20, 2015 (80 FR 72719). Consultation has been conducted throughout the 

planning process, and is ongoing.

• In January and February 2015, public open house were held in Juneau, 

Sitka, and Ketchikan to engage the public in the planning process and share 

information about the progress being made on the Proposed Forest Plan and 

DEIS. All of the open house materials were posted on the Forest Plan 

Amendment Web site.
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-13 Purpose and Need

• In May of 2015, the TAC provided the Secretary with a comprehensive 

package of draft recommendations for the Forest Plan Amendment. The 

plan amendment IDT incorporated the draft recommendations that were 

applicable to amending the Forest Plan. These recommendations provided 

specific constraints related to transitioning the Tongass to young-growth 

forest management.

• On November 20, 2015, an NOA of the DEIS was published in the Federal 

Register (80 FR 72719), which started the 90-day public comment period.

• After reviewing the DEIS and Proposed Forest Plan, the TAC provided its 

final recommendations to the Secretary for the Forest Plan Amendment in 

December 2015.

• In January and February 2016, the Forest Service hosted nine public open 

house meetings, each followed by a subsistence hearing. These public open 

house meetings were held in the following Southeast Alaska communities: 

Klawock, Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau, Sitka, Hoonah, Yakutat, 

and Kake. Participants had the opportunity to review the contents of the 

Proposed Forest Plan, including the five alternatives analyzed in the DEIS. 

Forest Service staff provided an overview, listened to public concerns, and 

was available to answer questions. The public was also invited to submit 

written comments during the open house. Although an ANILCA Section 810 

evaluation and determination was not required for approval of a Forest Plan 

amendment (see Subsistence section in Chapter 3 of FEIS), subsistence 

hearings were held after each open house meeting, which gave the public an 

opportunity to provide oral testimony regarding concerns about the Proposed 

Forest Plan Amendment on subsistence uses.

• More than 165,000 comments were received during the DEIS comment 

period. These comments are summarized and addressed in Appendix H, 

DEIS Comments and Responses. All comments received during the DEIS 

comment period are included in the Planning Record.

Significant Issues

The Forest Service used the scoping process to determine the scope of issues to 

be addressed and identify the significant issues related to a proposed action.

When identifying issues to be analyzed in the environmental analysis, it is helpful 

to ask, “Is there disagreement about the best way to use a resource, or resolve 

an unwanted resource condition, or potentially significant effects of a proposed 

action or alternative?” If the answer is yes, the Forest Service may benefit from 

subjecting the issue to analysis. This is called a significant issue. Entire 

resources cannot be issues by themselves, but concerns over how a resource 

may be affected by the proposal can be issues.

Significant issues are those related to significant or potentially significant effects

and are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action or alternative. These issues drive the range of alternatives and 

effects analysis. 

The Four Significant Issues

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during scoping.
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-14 Final EIS

Issue 1 –Young Growth Transition

The Secretary of Agriculture asked the Forest Service to transition to a younggrowth-based timber management program on the Tongass National Forest in 10 

to 15 years, which is more rapid than planned. This transition is intended to 

support the Tongass managing its forest for an ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable forest management program and reduce old-growth 

harvest while still providing economic timber to support the local forest products 

industry.

The issue concerns financial efficiency, salability, and volume of future timber 

sales. It also relates to the potential local employment and revenues generated 

for communities in the local area. Young-growth stand growth rates, sustainable 

harvest rates, the amount of old-growth harvest needed during transition to 

sustain the timber industry, also known as “bridge timber,” and the locations 

where young-growth harvest would take place are some of the factors to be 

considered.

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy

The development of renewable energy projects on the Tongass would help 

Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil fuel dependence, stimulate 

economic development, and lower carbon emissions in the Region.

This issue relates to comments received during the Five-Year Review of the 

Forest Plan. The Forest Service should promote the development of renewable 

energy projects to help Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil energy 

dependence, where it is compatible with National Forest purposes and to ensure 

that the planning, construction, and operation of projects protect and effectively 

use NFS lands and resources. 

Issue 3 –Inventoried Roadless Areas

Timber harvest and road building that occurred in roadless areas before the 2001

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) was enacted and during the 

Tongass exemption period changed the values or features that often characterize 

inventoried roadless areas in some locations.

Issues and concerns received during scoping as well as during the Five-Year 

Review process expressed concerns about roadless areas on the Tongass; both 

in favor of protections afforded under the 2001 Roadless Rule as well as 

requesting that the forest plan be amended to address the significant changes 

brought about by its re-instatement on the Tongass. 

Some people believe roadless areas on the Tongass should be allowed to evolve 

naturally through their own dynamic processes and should be afforded protection 

that ensures this will occur. Others believe that limiting road construction and 

reconstruction or other management actions in roadless areas might restrict the 

delivery of goods, services, and activities that these areas might otherwise 

provide. 

Roadless areas are considered important because they support a diversity of 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats, species, and communities, and play an important 

role in helping to conserve native plant and animal communities and biological 

diversity. They also provide people with unique recreation opportunities. 

During the Tongass exemption period and before the 2001 Roadless Rule was 

enacted, road construction, reconstruction, and the cutting, and sale of timber in 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-15 Purpose and Need

some IRAs occurred. As a result, these activities in some IRAs may have altered 

the roadless characteristics.

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy

Old-growth timber harvest has changed the composition and spatial patterns of 

terrestrial wildlife habitats. How the resulting young-growth is managed may 

influence the future ecological integrity of the landscape at various scales. 

Changes made to suitable lands designated for development, and to plan 

components (e.g., standards and guidelines) may affect old-growth habitat for 

wildlife and the Tongass Old-growth Habitat Conservation Strategy and 

contributing elements to old-growth reserves (e.g., riparian, beach and estuary 

habitats).

The Tongass National Forest supports an important assemblage of wildlife many 

of which are associated with or at least partially dependent on old-growth forest 

including one of the largest populations of brown bears in the world, high 

densities of breeding bald eagles, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, species of 

high importance for subsistence (e.g., Sitka black-tailed deer), an extensive array 

of endemic mammals, and other species that are dependent on old-growth 

habitats (e.g., marten and goshawk). The Tongass Old-growth Habitat 

Conservation Strategy is considered important for the continued health of oldgrowth associated wildlife populations in Southeast Alaska. 

Timber harvest, minerals and renewable energy development, and road 

development can have effects on the habitat and populations of many of these 

species and the diversity and integrity of Southeast Alaska ecosystems. Less 

than 10 percent of the productive old-growth habitat on the Tongass has been 

converted to young growth, the percentage is much higher for certain types of old 

growth, such as lowland and large-tree old growth. In addition, non-NFS old 

growth has generally been harvested at a much higher rate. Therefore, the 

consideration of harvest and road building on wildlife in Southeast Alaska are 

greater than the effects for the Tongass by itself.

Changes between the Draft EIS and 

Final EIS

A number of updates and changes were made in the FEIS and Forest Plan in 

response to new information and to comments received on the DEIS and 

Proposed Forest Plan. The main areas of change to the EIS are described 

below. Changes to the Forest Plan are described in the next section.

1. Refinements were made to base Geographic Information System (GIS) 

coverages such as ownership, streams, cover type, roads, and LUDs to 

reflect updates due to changes in the existing condition and refinement of 

inventory data (e.g., updated young-growth inventory).

2. Because of refinements made to the base GIS coverages, the acreages and 

mileages associated with the existing condition and the alternatives changed, 

in many cases, and were updated throughout the document. Input data for 

the Woodstock model was also updated based on GIS refinements. 

Sometimes analysis methods were also refined, which resulted in changes to 

the quantification of effects.

3. The method of calculating suitable forest land was refined, including the 

model for calculating the riparian management area. 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-16 Final EIS

4. Alternative 5 was revised to add a 100-foot buffer around anadromous lakes 

in order to provide similar protection afforded by the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act.

5. Alternative descriptions in Chapter 2 were revised to call out additional 

differences between the alternatives, including the anadromous lake buffer

and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon conservation priority areas, and 

Tongass 77 watersheds under Alternative 5.

6. Cost assumptions used in the Woodstock model were updated and additional 

cost factors were included as inputs. The model was rerun for each 

alternative. The FEIS was updated to reflect the revised model outputs.

7. Expanded discussion and analysis and incorporation of additional scientific 

references and studies were included in many sections of the FEIS. 

8. FEIS Appendix B was updated and additional information on modeling and 

analysis techniques was added.

9. FEIS Appendix D was updated and additional analysis and information was 

incorporated.

10. FEIS Appendix H was added to provide information on the Alaska Limited 

Timber Export Policy.

11. FEIS Appendix I was developed, which summarizes the comments received 

on the DEIS and the Forest Service responses to these comments. Copies 

of the letters received from agencies and elected officials, including tribal 

governments, are also included. 

Changes between Proposed Forest 

Plan and Forest Plan

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Purpose

Content was edited to correct clerical errors.

Relationship to Other Documents

Content was edited to correct clerical errors. A footnote was also added to clarify 

the definition for plan content.

Plan Organization

Plan content regarding the plan monitoring program was updated.

Forest Plan Management Direction

Content was edited to correct clerical errors.

Priority of Direction

Additional content was added to clarify that the direction in Chapter 5 assumes 

all laws, regulations, and policy pertaining to management of National Forest 

resources will be followed.
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-17 Purpose and Need

Forest Location and Description

Content was edited to correct clerical errors.

Chapter 2 – Goals and Objectives

Introduction

Content was edited to correct clerical errors.

Forest Desired Conditions

The following was removed from the fifth desired condition: “...considered 

threatened or endangered in the lower 48 states...” This statement was removed 

because it does not add any meaning, and the USFWS found wolves to not be 

warranted for listing under the endangered species act. Other edits to desired 

conditions included removing the underlining.

Ecosystem Services

No content was edited in this appendix.

Forest-wide Multiple Use Goals and Objectives

Clarifications were made regarding references to Forest-wide goals or objectives 

in Chapter 5. The goal or objective codes were included.

Clarifications were made to Transportation goals to ensure that access to 

Southeast Alaska communities is primarily achieved through Federal Highway 

Administration highways and roads in easements to the State of Alaska. The 

Forest Service will consider adding access points to facilitate implementation the 

State of Alaska’s Southeast Transportation Plan (SATP) to tie the objective to the 

transportation plan.

Chapter 3 – Management Prescriptions

Land Use Designations

Land Use Designation Allocations were updated due to the refinements that were 

made to base GIS coverages in the FEIS.

Some wording that was deleted in the Proposed Forest Plan was restored. In the 

Proposed Forest Plan, some LUD Standards and Guidelines that repeated

Forest Service Directive System wording (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] or 

Manual [FSM]) or repeated existing direction was deleted because it was not 

necessary. FSH 1909.12, chapter 20, section 22.1, paragraph 2f states that plan 

components should not should not repeat existing direction from laws, 

regulations, or directives. However, public comments expressed concerns about 

the “breadth” or expansiveness of these changes, giving the appearance of a 

broad-based amendment. (See FEIS Appendix H, Purpose and Need, Planning 

Rule sections.) Although these changes are administrative, for clarity’s sake, the

changes have been restored to the original language in the following LUDs: 

Wilderness, Research Natural Area, Municipal Watershed, Old-growth Habitat, 

Remote Recreation, Land Use Designation II, Wild River, Experimental Forest, 

Modified Landscape, Timber Production, and Minerals Overlay.
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-18 Final EIS

Tables that cross-reference, by resource, the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines (Chapter 4) were edited based on the restored original language in 

Chapter 4 (explained below), as well as internally identified corrections that were 

needed in the section and subsection columns. The titles of the tables that 

cross-reference, by resource, the plan components (Chapter 5), were edited to 

reflect the title of Chapter 5 (i.e., plan content). Chapter 5 identifies “direction” for 

young-growth, renewable energy, and transportation systems corridors, and this 

word was added for clarity when cross referencing.

Chapter 4 – Standards and Guidelines

The corrections that were made to remove Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines that referenced directives (FSH or FSM), or repeated existing 

direction have been restored to original language for reasons as described above 

for Chapter 3 - Management Prescriptions. Although these changes are 

administrative, for clarity’s sake, the changes have been restored to the original 

language in the following resource sections: Air, Fish, Lands, Plants, Recreation 

and Tourism, Soil and Water, Subsistence, Timber, Trails, Transportation, and 

Wildlife.

Chapter 5 – Plan Content Developed Under the 

2012 Planning Rule

Introduction

Content was edited for clarity. A footnote was also added to clarify the definition 

for plan content. Under the Plan Components section, the definition for a 

standard was added for clarity.

Changes Made in the 2008 Forest Plan

This section was removed from Chapter 5 and placed in Chapter 1 of the FEIS.

Young Growth Direction

Several clarifications were made to the young-growth plan components based on 

final TAC recommendations (Forest Plan Appendix B), response to public 

comments (FEIS Appendix I), as well as internally identified clarifications. The 

management approach for young growth regarding the internal scientific review 

on young-growth timber projects that intersect with high value fish watersheds

was updated based on final TAC recommendations (Forest Plan Appendix B, 

and public comments (see Appendix H, Specific Comments). The Scenery

standard S-YG-SCENE-02 was removed based on IDT discussions with the TAC

in December 2015, and the removal of this recommendation in their final 

recommendations. (Consult Forest Plan Appendix B.) The management 

approach for wildlife regarding young-growth harvest in the Old-Growth Habitat 

LUD to determine if Appendix K criteria could be met, was clarified in response to 

internal comments.

Renewable Energy Direction

Several clarifications were made to the renewable energy plan components 

based on public comments (FEIS Appendix H, Fish, Transportation and Utility 

System LUD , Renewable Energy), as well as internally identified clarifications. A 

management approach for renewable energy was added based on public 

comments that expressed concerns that renewable energy plan components 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-19 Purpose and Need

may take priority over environmental protective measures. The fish standard SRE-FISH-01 was clarified in response to public comments that expressed 

concerns about potential impacts of renewable energy development on fish.

Transportation Systems Corridors Direction

Clarifications were made to the transportation systems corridors plan 

components in response to public comments (FEIS Appendix H, Purpose and 

Need, Planning Rule, Road Density, Transportation and Utility System LUD , 

Specific Comments), as well as internally identified clarifications. In the 

introduction to this section, the following sentences was added for clarification 

and to be similar to what was stated in the renewable energy direction: Timber

cut incidental to transportation systems corridors should be managed according 

to FSH 2409.18, chapter 80, section 84, Timber Settlement. This also helped to 

clarify management approach for timber. Lands standard S-TSC-LAND-02 was 

added in response to public comments (FEIS Appendix H, Transportation and 

Utility System LUD , Specific Comments), and this was also an internally 

identified oversight/correction, and was added to be similar to renewable energy 

standard S-RE-TRAN-01. Soil and Water standard S-TSC-SW-01 was changed 

to guideline G-TSC-SW-01 based on an internally identified correction. As a 

standard, this constraint would have required measuring percent of vegetation 

cover required to maintain soil cover. More flexibility is desired when 

implementing this as a guideline.

Forest-wide Plan Components

Forest Desired Conditions (Chapter 2)

The following sentence was removed from desired condition DC-04 based on an 

internally identified clarification: “Other management activities should not conflict 

with transportation operations.” Although the intent of this sentence was written 

to ensure that if a transportation systems corridor was likely, the Forest Service 

should not authorize other activities that would conflict, it was interpreted as if 

nothing should get in the way of a road. For this reason it was removed.

Forest-wide Multiple-use Goals and Objectives (Chapter 

2)

Clarifications were made to timber objective O-TIM-01 in response to public 

comments (FEIS Appendix H, Purpose and Need, Specific Comments), as well 

as internally identified clarifications. Timber objective O-TIM-02 was rewritten in 

response to public comments (FEIS Appendix H, Specific Comments). 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (Chapter 4) 

Beach and Estuary Fringe (BEACH)

The forest-wide standard S-BEACH-01 was clarified in response to public 

comment (FEIS Appendix H, Specific Comments), as well as internally identified 

clarifications.

Timber (TIM)

A forest-wide timber standard S-TIM-01 was added based on an internally 

identified comment. A plan for a national forest that intends to sell timber must 

identify the sustained yield limit (SYL) as directed by FSH 1909.12, chapter 60, 

section 64.31.
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-20 Final EIS

Chapter 6 – Implementation

Content in this chapter was edited to remove references to Appendix J and to the 

Tongass Strategic Plan (Strategy for Management and Priority Setting – FY 2013 

thru FY 2017). This was an oversight in the Proposed Forest Plan. The Tongass 

National Forest has not updated its strategic plan. Therefore, language was 

added stating that the Forest Plan was consistent with several of the goals and 

objectives in the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY 2015-2020. The 

Decision Document section was removed because it repeated requirements of 

the following documents: 36 CFR 219.14 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 20, section 

21.4. Both of these documents may change over time. It would be better for 

employees to check the CFR and Agency directives rather than refer to the plan 

content that may become out-of-date. 

Chapter 7 – Glossary

This chapter was updated to remove glossary terms that had “strike throughs” in 

the Proposed Forest Plan. Some terms were further clarified. Additional terms 

were added for clarity.

Appendices

Appendix A –Timber Resource Land Suitability

Table A-1 was updated based on GIS refinements. Content was also updated 

based on final TAC recommendations (Forest Plan Appendix B) and in response 

to public comments (FEIS Appendix I, Specific Comments). Two tables were 

added to represent the following: 1) Estimated Vegetation Management Practices

(Annual Average per Decade), and 2) Average volume outputs for the 1st and 

2nd decades for Tongass National Forest planned timber sale program. 

Appendix B – Tongass Advisory Committee 

Recommendations

Content in this appendix was replaced in its entirety by the TAC Final 

Recommendations (December 2015) as reflected in the Forest Plan.

Appendix C – Watershed Analysis

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors.

Appendix D – Riparian Management Area Standards and 

Guidelines

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors.

Appendix E – Communication Sites

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors.

Appendix F – Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors.
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-21 Purpose and Need

Appendix G – Log Transfer Facility Guidelines

No content was edited in this appendix.

Appendix H – Karst and Cave Resources

No content was edited in this appendix.

Appendix I – ROS Class Standards and Guidelines

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors. 

Appendix J – Special Land Designations or 

Classifications

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors. The Red River 

Research Natural Area was added as this was an oversight in the Proposed 

Forest Plan.

Appendix K – Old-growth Habitat Reserve Modification 

Procedures

No changes were made to this appendix.

Appendix L – Special Interest Areas and Experimental 

Forests

This appendix is now Appendix J. Additionally, the contents in this appendix 

were updated to reflect changes made to special interest areas and experimental 

forests. Land descriptions previously found in Chapter 3 were moved to this 

appendix to consolidate similar content and eliminate redundancy.

Organization of the Document

Organization of EIS and Associated 

Documents

This FEIS is organized into several chapters (Volume I) and a number of 

appendices (Volume II). Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” describes the reasons 

for proposing and completing a plan amendment. Chapter 2, “Alternatives,” 

describes the process used to develop alternatives, discusses alternatives not 

considered in detail, and describes the alternatives considered in detail. Finally, 

a comparison of these alternatives based on the key elements of the alternatives, 

and the significant issues is presented. 

The discussions of the “Affected Environment” and the “Environmental 

Consequences” are combined in Chapter 3, “Environment and Effects.” This is 

done so the environmental consequences (effects or impacts) of the alternatives 

on forest resources, and the background information needed to understand these 

consequences, are discussed together for each resource. The focus is on 

effects that are related to the significant issues. Chapter 3 also includes a brief

description of the physical, biological and socioeconomic settings of the Tongass 

National Forest. 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-22 Final EIS

The FEIS also includes a list of preparers; a list of agencies, organizations, and 

persons receiving copies of the document; a bibliography; a glossary; and an 

index (Chapters 4 through 8). A complete Forest Plan suitability map is provided 

for each of the alternatives in the Map Packet that accompanies the FEIS hard 

copy and CD. 

Appendices to the FEIS are contained in a separate volume (FEIS Volume II). 

They provide more background on planning actions, certain resources and 

analyses, modeling and analysis techniques, and past and reasonably 

foreseeable projects.

In addition to the FEIS, a separate document, called the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), has been published with this FEIS, to 

represent the Forest Plan under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5).

Additional information, maps, and published documents for the Tongass Forest 

Plan Amendment are contained in the Planning Record. Key documents and 

records are also available on the Forest Plan Amendment Web site

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R10/Tongass/PlanAmend ). These can also be accessed 

through the main Tongass Web site (www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass). The complete 

Planning Record is on file at the Supervisor’s Office in Ketchikan, Alaska.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-1 Alternatives

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for amending the 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest 

Service developed five alternatives for detailed analysis, including the no action and 

proposed action alternatives, in response to the significant issues. Alternatives are 

presented in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each 

alternative and providing a basis for the rationale for eventual selection of an 

alternative in a decision. Chapter 2 is divided into four parts:

1. A discussion of how alternatives were developed and what constitutes an 

alternative;

2. A discussion of alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study;

3. A full description of the alternatives that are considered in detail; and

4. A comparison of the alternatives considered in detail.

Color maps showing Land Use Designations (LUDs) and lands suitable for timber 

production are included in the Map Folder of the CD version of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and in the Map Packet accompanying the 

hard copy version. These maps are also available on the Tongass Planning Web 

site at www.fs.usda.gov/main/tongass/landmanagement/planning. 

Alternative Development Process

What a Forest Plan Includes

Land management planning may be compared to city, county, or borough zoning. 

Just as areas in a community are zoned as commercial (allowing business uses), 

industrial (allowing factories), or residential (allowing only homes, schools, etc.), a

National Forest is zoned to allow, or not allow, various uses and activities. Land 

management (forest plan) zoning is done through the use of land use designations 

(LUDs) that are applied only to National Forest System (NFS) lands on that NFS 

unit.

Land Use Designations specify ways of managing an area of land and the resources 

it contains. LUDs may emphasize certain resources (such as remote recreation or 

old-growth wildlife habitat) or combinations of resources (such as providing for 

scenic quality in combination with timber harvesting). Each LUD has a detailed 

management prescription, which includes the following elements of Forest Plan

management direction: Land Use Designation Standards and Guidelines, Forestwide Standards and Guidelines, and Plan Components1.

Each management prescription specifies what is to be considered for site-specific 

project proposals, and under what conditions. Management prescriptions apply to 

NFS lands.

LUDs are assigned, or allocated, to specified areas of land. Under any one 

alternative, a given area of land will generally have only one LUD assigned to it. 

However, the Minerals LUD is an overlapping land allocation and can apply to a

 1 Plan components are desired conditions, goals, objectives, suitability of lands, standards, and guidelines 

as defined in the 2012 Planning Rule.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-2 Final EIS

given piece of ground when and if a minerals Plan of Operation is approved on that 

piece of ground. In some other cases, two LUDs may apply to the same area, such 

as a Wild River LUD within a Wilderness LUD. In these cases, the more restrictive 

management prescription always applies. Some LUDs, such as Wilderness and 

LUD II, are congressionally designated and represent permanent allocations.

Forest resource use opportunities, such as timber harvesting or recreation, can be 

made available in different amounts. What lands to make available for timber 

harvest or how much of a particular kind of recreation opportunity to provide are 

questions that land management planning must also address. It is not always 

possible to provide all resource use opportunities in the amounts desired by 

everyone. The National Forest Management Act mandates the Forest Service to 

provide for multiple use and the sustained yield of the products and services

obtained from the Forest.

The alternatives themselves are designed around a framework that establishes how 

much emphasis is placed on each of the significant issues or other issues. The 

FEIS alternatives are directly related to the issues described in Chapter 1. How 

alternatives were developed to address the issues is discussed below. The 

Comparison of Alternatives section at the end of this chapter also discusses ways in 

which the alternatives address the issues.

How Alternatives are Described

Each alternative for this FEIS is presented in the same format. This includes the 

following components:

• Framework and Expected Outputs. The basis for alternative design and 

outputs that are expected in the future under each alternative.

• Land Use Designations. The acreages allocated to each Land Use 

Designation. 

• Management Prescriptions. Changes to the Forest Plan management 

direction.

• Selected Outputs and Measures. A summary of predicted outputs and 

measures associated with each alternative.

Land Use Designations

The alternatives are developed using the LUD allocations defined in the 2008

Tongass Forest Plan as the base. This base represents the current Tongass Forest 

Plan based on decisions made in the 2008 Record of Decision (ROD) and 

subsequent Forest Plan Amendments made for projects since 2008, as well as land 

adjustments in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

2

The LUD allocations of the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan define the no action 

alternative (Alternative 1). The LUD allocations for the action alternatives are similar 

to the no action, but incorporate some adjustments. The management prescriptions 

for each specific LUD under the Alternative 1 are the same as under the 2008 Forest 

Plan (see Chapter 3 of the current Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 2008a).

How the 2012 Planning Rule applies

The proposed plan amendment adds provisions to and modifies provisions of the 

2008 Forest Plan. As explained in Chapter 6 of the amended plan, the 2012 

 2 Public law No. 113-291, December 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3729, section 3720(e)(4).
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-3 Alternatives

Planning Rule requirements for project consistency with plan components apply only 

to additions and modifications (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 219.15(d)). 

This proposed amendment has met the applicable procedural requirements of the 

2012 Planning Rule. That is, the amendment meets section 219.2(b)(3), to consider 

the best scientific information (219.3), to provide opportunities for public participation 

and give public notice (219.4, 219.16), to set out direction in the form of plan 

components (219.7(e)), to amend plans in accordance with a specific process 

(219.13), to include specific information in a decision document (219.14), to state 

whether or not projects authorized at the time of amendment may continue without 

change (219.15), and to provide an objection opportunity (parts 219.50-219.62). 

The responsible official has determined that for this amendment only a part of the 

substantive provisions of 36 CFR 219.11 apply. The proposed plan amendment: 

1. Identifies specific young-growth stands as suitable for timber production using 

the provisions of 36 CFR 219.11(a). Such stands include young growth in the 

beach and estuary fringe, riparian management areas, and in the Old-Growth 

Habitat LUD. 

2. Includes plan components specific to guide young-growth harvest for timber 

production and other multiple-use purposes using the provision of 36 CFR 

219.11(b). 

3. Includes plan components specific to guide young-growth harvest for purposes 

other than timber production including improving or maintaining fish and wildlife 

habitat using the provision of 36 CFR 219.11(c).

4. Includes plan components specific to guide young-growth harvest to constrain 

timber harvest consistent with protection of soils, watershed, fish, wildlife, and 

scenic resources using the provisions of 36 CFR 219.11(d). The plan 

amendment does not change the plan direction for old-growth timber harvest. 

5. Includes a standard for young-growth harvest before the culmination of mean 

annual increment to recognize the acreage limitation of subsection (e)(4)(B) of 

Public Law 113–291, Sec. 3002, subsection (e)(4)(A). 

Some people may question this determination of limiting the substantial applicable 

requirements to section 219.11. However, the responsible official has the discretion 

to determine whether and how to amend the plan. The responsible official also has 

discretion to determine the specific changes to propose and approve. The rule 

provides that “[p]lan amendments may be broad or narrow, depending on the need 

for change,” and that “[t]he responsible official has the discretion to determine 

whether and how to amend the plan” (36 CFR 219.13(a)). The rule reinforces the 

principle by providing that the rule “does not compel a change to any existing plan” 

(36 CFR 219.17 (c)). 

Note that the first paragraph of 36 CFR 219.11 states that a plan must meet timberrelated requirements “while meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.10,” 

and it has been argued that an amendment applying either of these sections would 

require a transformation of a plan to meet all the substantive requirements of the 

rule. Clearly, this phrase is intended for new or revised plans; otherwise, a simple, 

narrow proposal to change a plan developed under the 1982 rule would be 

impossible.

Future Project Consistency with the Amended

Plan

Project consistency with the amended plan is complex. Plan direction that is 

unchanged by this amendment must be consistent in a different way than new plan 

direction added by this amendment.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-4 Final EIS

Plan direction in the 2008 Forest Plan (e.g., standards and guidelines) was

developed under the 1982 Planning Rule (47 Federal Register [FR] 43026). The 

1982 Planning Rule did not provide specific criteria to evaluate consistency of 

projects or activities with the plan. Forest Service policy was that consistency could

only be determined with respect to standards and guidelines, or just standards

because an individual project alone could almost never achieve objectives and 

desired conditions (77 FR 21241, April 9, 2012)

The 2008 Forest Plan defines a guideline as “a preferred or advisable course of 

action or level of attainment designed to promote achievement of goals and 

objectives.” Standards are mandatory and guidelines are discretionary in the 2008 

Forest Plan. 

The 2012 Planning Rule includes specific requirements for plan components (36 

CFR 219 parts 219.8–219.11) and definitions for plan components are rigid. The 

2012 Planning Rule defines a guideline as a constraint on project and activity

decision-making that allows for departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of 

the guideline is met. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, standards and guidelines are 

both mandatory constraints and projects and activities must be consistent with the 

applicable standards and guidelines. The 2012 Planning Rule also includes 

consistency provisions at 36 CFR 219.15(d) that apply only to plan components 

developed under the 2012 Planning Rule. Therefore, any substantial changes to 

plan direction must be consistent with the 2012 Planning Rule.

To avoid confusion, most changes to plan direction are based on the 2012 Planning 

Rule and are written as plan components and are found in Chapter 5 of the Forest 

Plan. The plan direction in the 2008 Forest Plan that is not changed, for example 

Wilderness standards and guidelines, will retain standards (mandatory) and 

guidelines (optional) as defined by the 1982 Planning Rule. 

Alternative Development

The proposed action (Alternative 2) was developed to maximize or emphasize the 

percentage of the volume coming from young growth as early as possible, while 

minimizing any potential effects on the old-growth conservation strategy and other 

resources, and to make the development of renewable energy resources more 

permissible in the plan area (see Chapter 1 Purpose and Need). Alternatives to the 

proposed action were developed in response to the significant issues (see Chapter 

1, Issues). Ten alternatives were considered as part of the alternative development 

process. These include alternatives recommended in scoping comments, other 

comments, and developed internally by the plan amendment interdisciplinary team 

(IDT). Of these, five alternatives were eliminated from detailed study and are 

discussed in the following section (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study). 

Five alternatives (including the proposed action) are considered in detail in this 

FEIS. They are designed to provide a range of reasonable ways to address the 

Purpose and Need. 

Basic tools used in the development of the alternatives include recent timber 

demand projections (Pacific Northwest Research Station 2016), Tongass GIS 

databases, and the existing inventory of roadless lands (based on the 2001 

Roadless Rule). Maintaining the integrity of the old-growth conservation strategy

was also a major consideration in alternative development. Alternative proposals

from other agencies or non-governmental organizations were considered along with 

alternatives developed internally by the plan amendment IDT.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-5 Alternatives

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed 

Study

Develop an Amendment using the 1982 Planning 

Rule Provisions

The 2012 Planning Rule gave the discretion to the Agency to initiate a plan

amendment using the 1982 Planning Rule provisions for 3 years after May 9, 2012

(36 CFR 219.17(b)(2)). The Forest Service decided to use the 2012 Planning Rule

provisions to amend the Forest Plan since that will best segue into the next revision 

of the plan. Since the scope of this amendment is narrow, it is less complicated to 

address and compare alternatives in a plan amendment under one set of 

regulations. Having one or more alternatives that used the 1982 Planning Rule 

provisions would make comparing these alternatives to the alternatives under the 

2012 Planning Rule provisions more difficult since the definitions of plan 

components and their intent have changed from the 1982 Planning Rule. Most 

notably how standards and guidelines are defined and used (see discussion above 

in Future Project Consistency with the Amended Plan section). Therefore, any 

alternative that proposed using the 1982 Planning Rule provisions was removed 

from detailed consideration. Alternative 1 (no action) represents current 

management which follows the 1982 Planning Rule provisions in their entirety.

Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

Comments suggested that the proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

be included as an action common to all alternatives in the plan amendment. In 

determining whether the proposed land exchange fits within the scope of the EIS, 

the Forest Service considered three types of actions: connected, similar, and 

cumulative actions (40 CFR 1508.25). 

The proposed land exchange is not a connected action (i.e., an action that is 

“closely related” to the proposal and alternatives, and provides a basis for evaluating 

their environmental consequences together). Connected actions automatically 

trigger other actions, they cannot or will not proceed unless other actions have been 

taken previously or simultaneously, or they are interdependent parts of a larger 

action and depend on the larger action for their justification. 

The proposed land exchange is not similar to the action being proposed in this plan 

amendment. For these reasons, the proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Land 

Exchange is not analyzed in detail in an alternative.

In terms of being a cumulative action, when viewed with the proposed actions for the 

plan amendment, the proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange is 

considered a reasonably foreseeable action and, therefore, is discussed and 

considered in this EIS.

State of Alaska Alternative

The State of Alaska proposed an alternative which was modeled and analyzed 

intensively before removing it from detailed consideration. Similar to Alternative 1

(no action), no commercial harvest would be allowed in non-development LUDs, 

Beach and Estuary Fringe, Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), or highvulnerability karst. In addition, this alternative would follow the timber sale program 

adaptive management strategy.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-6 Final EIS

This alternative differs from Alternative 1 in that the Timber Production, Modified 

Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs would be consolidated into a single LUD

and labeled “Development LUD.” Additionally, timber harvest and road construction 

would be allowed in 2001 Roadless Rule inventoried roadless areas. 

Forest Plan direction for scenery (scenic integrity objectives [SIOs]) would not be 

established for areas within the Development LUD so that harvest could occur 

without specific constraints (e.g., standards and guidelines) to minimize scenery 

effects. However, this alternative would include a mitigating factor for scenery and 

wildlife. The factor limits the amount of area in a large watershed that can be younggrowth forest; the total acreage in even-aged stands younger than 150 years would 

be limited to one-third of the total acreage of forest land within each Value 

Comparison Unit (VCU). The elimination of the requirement to harvest no earlier 

than at 95 percent of culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) (see Alternative 

1 description) would not be incorporated into this alternative.

This alternative was modeled using Woodstock (Walters 1993), a forest 

management linear programming modeling system that accommodates binary 

search and Monte Carlo simulation, in order to determine how quickly this alternative

could transition to a harvest level dominated by young growth (see Appendix B). 

Modeling results indicated that transitioning to a point where about 41 million board 

feet (MMBF) of young growth and 5 MMBF of old growth could be harvested each 

year would require just over 30 years. The amount of young-growth timber on lands 

suitable for timber production in this alternative would be slightly less than in

Alternative 1. Removal of the scenery standards would increase young-growth

harvest in the early years. Not eliminating the CMAI requirement would decrease 

young-growth harvest, relative to Alternative 1, which would allow elimination of the 

CMAI requirement. 

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need because it would not transition 

in 10 or 15 years and, in fact, would not increase the transition speed, relative to 

Alternative 1. Therefore, this alternative was not carried forward for detailed 

analysis in the EIS. 

Immediate End to Old-growth Logging

Several scoping comments suggested an alternative that transitions away from oldgrowth management and into young-growth management immediately. Such an 

abrupt change would result in substantial adverse effects on the timber industry of 

Southeast Alaska for two reasons: 

1. the abrupt change would make it difficult or impossible for mills to quickly re-tool 

so they could process young growth; and

2. the availability of economically viable young growth is currently limited and, as a 

result, the Forest Service would likely offer substantially less timber volume than 

the projected demand (Table 2-1).

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because it does not 

meet the purpose and need. Specifically, ending old-growth logging immediately 

would not meet the need for maintaining a viable timber industry that provides jobs 

and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-7 Alternatives

Transition to Limited Young-Growth Logging in 

Five Years

Some comments requested a 5-year transition. In a detailed proposal, a constraint 

was added that the total initial volume would be 35 MMBF per year and the oldgrowth portion of that would steadily decrease over five years to a final volume of 

3.5 MMBF or less per year. The goal is to increase young-growth volume during this 

5-year period to maintain the total volume at 35 MMBF per year. Total volume is not 

to exceed 35 MMBF per year after the transition and is expected to be made up of 

31.5 MMBF of young growth and 3.5 MMBF of old growth. This alternative was 

modeled using Woodstock (Walters 1993), a forest management linear 

programming modeling system that accommodates binary search and Monte Carlo 

simulation, and extensively analyzed (Appendix B).

To obtain this volume, the alternative would allow old-growth harvest only in Timber

Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy Phase I lands of the 2008 Forest Plan 

and outside of inventoried roadless areas. Similarly, young-growth harvest would 

also be allowed only in Phase I lands and only in Development LUDs outside of 

inventoried roadless areas; no harvest would be permitted in Beach and Estuary 

Fringe, RMAs, or in any lands identified as low, medium, or high vulnerability karst. 

This alternative would allow harvest of stands at ages younger than 95 percent of 

CMAI. In order to obtain sufficient young-growth volume to transition in five years, 

this alternative harvests stands as young as 55 years of age. As a result, a large 

number of trees in these stands produce only one log per tree, resulting in higher 

logging costs and smaller wood producing less revenue. This alternative also 

prioritizes the young-growth stands that may be harvested to achieve sufficient 

volume to maintain 35 MMBF per year.

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for these reasons:

• The phase-down of old growth would result in too rapid of a transition to allow 

the timber industry time to retool. The purpose and need for this amendment, 

which relies on the Secretary’s July 2013 memo, identifies a 10- to 15-year 

period for industry to adapt. 

• Further, this alternative would not allow the Forest Service sufficient time to offer 

enough economic old-growth and young-growth volume during the next 10 or 

more years to maintain the current timber industry (Table 2-1), even if it could 

adapt that rapidly. 

• This alternative is the most restrictive of the alternatives considered in terms of 

which young-growth stands may be harvested, and even without these 

restrictions, there is insufficient economic young-growth volume available to 

produce 31.5 MMBF per year by the end of Year 5. 

• Harvesting 55-year-old trees does not appear to be practical or economic in 

Southeast Alaska. The market for large volumes of young-growth logs has not 

yet been demonstrated and this is especially true for small logs from 55-year-old

stands. 

• Recent experience and modeling indicates that the majority of trees in 55-yearold stands will produce only one log per tree. This results in higher logging 

costs and substantially lower revenues per acre (smaller diameter logs and 

fewer logs per acre).

• Stands producing only one log per tree, would result in much higher levels of 

slash (due to the fact that there would be many logs left behind that are almost 

long enough, but not quite). These slash levels may produce dense slash on 
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-8 Final EIS

the forest floor with negative effects on regeneration, wildlife movement and 

forage, and/or recreation and scenery.

• Based on current demand projections, a total of 35 MMBF is insufficient to

maintain the current industry (Table 2-1).

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because it does not 

meet the purpose and need. 

In an attempt to modify this alternative so that it would be economic and meet the 

purpose and need, the interdisciplinary team changed its volume requirements to be 

the same as the alternatives analyzed in detail (i.e., 46 MMBF per year total volume, 

emphasizing young growth as much as possible, with old growth declining to a 

maximum of 5 MMBF per year). In addition, the minimum stand ages for harvest 

were changed to 65 years for high site and 75 years for lower site stands. 

After modeling, it was observed that the volumes produced by this modified 

alternative were similar to the volumes produced by Alternative 4 (see Alternatives

Considered in Detail section). Alternative 4 is very similar to this modified alternative 

in terms of its framework; the primary difference is that Alternative 4 allows 

commercial thinning in the Beach and Estuary Fringe. This small difference was 

judged to be insufficient to justify inclusion of an additional alternative so the 

alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluation.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Table 2-1 displays the projected timber harvest under a baseline and three 

additional demand scenarios developed for the Tongass National Forest by Daniels

et al. (2016). Under these demand scenarios the harvest projection would be 42

MMBF in 2016 and would increase under all scenarios to maximums ranging from 

46 to 76 by 2030. The scenarios are described in detail in the Economic and Social 

Environment section of this EIS (see Tables 3.22-8 to 3.22-10 and Figures 3.22-7 

and 3.22-8 and associated text).

Table 2-1

Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model 

and Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (MMBF)

Year Baseline Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three 

2015 40.9 40.9 40.9 40.8

2016 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6

2017 42.3 42.3 43.4 42.5

2018 43.1 43.1 46.3 43.3

2019 43.8 43.8 49.2 44.1

2020 44.5 44.5 52.1 45.0

2021 45.3 45.3 55.1 45.8

2022 46.0 46.0 58.0 46.7

2023 46.7 46.7 60.9 47.5

2024 47.5 47.5 63.8 48.4

2025 48.2 44.0 63.0 45.0

2026 48.9 44.5 65.7 45.6

2027 49.7 45.0 68.4 46.2

2028 50.4 45.5 71.0 46.8

2029 51.1 45.9 73.7 47.4

2030 51.9 46.4 76.4 47.9
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-9 Alternatives

In past Forest Plan revisions and amendments, varying demand scenarios were 

used to develop alternatives, including scenarios that allowed for growth and 

expansion of the current industry. In this amendment, the purpose and need 

identifies the need to expedite the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting 

and towards a forest products industry that uses predominantly second-growth – or 

young-growth – forests. Therefore, examination of alternatives at levels above 

projected demand is not warranted because these would require expansion of oldgrowth harvest levels, at least during the next 10 to 15 years. However, over the 

longer term, expansion of the timber industry is an option as more and more young 

growth becomes economic to harvest. 

Therefore, Alternatives 1 through 5 were designed to correspond with current 

demand projections and produce a projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ)3 of about 

46 MMBF per year during the next 15 years, with old growth making up a decreasing 

percentage of the total. Old-growth volume would continue to decrease until it 

reaches about 5 MMBF per year and it would remain at that level, to support limited 

small timber operators. As more young growth becomes economic to harvest, the 

PTSQ would be allowed to increase. In no case, would the harvest level be allowed 

to exceed the sustained yield limit (SYL) (see Glossary and the Timber section of 

this EIS).

Even though Alternative 1 (no action) represents current management, it is modeled 

to follow the same volume production pattern. The July 2013 Secretary’s memo

identified a need to change direction in the 2008 Forest Plan (see Purpose and 

Need in Chapter 1) and without this amendment, the Tongass would be transitioning 

toward young-growth and away from old-growth harvest. 

Provisions Common to all Alternatives

Under all alternatives, there is flexibility in terms of when young-growth stands may 

be harvested. Under Public Law 113-291, up to 15,000 acres of young growth may 

be harvested from 2016 through 2025, in stands less than 95 percent of CMAI. This 

CMAI flexibility may continue after 2025 (with annual maximums); however, the total 

acreage harvested at less than 95 percent of CMAI cannot exceed 50,000. In 

addition, young-growth sales under this provision may not be offered unless they 

represent non-deficit sales.4 There is flexibility in NFMA to allow a continuation of 

harvesting at younger ages beyond 2025.

LUD Changes Common to the Action Alternatives

The LUD allocations for each alternative are described in the following alternativespecific descriptions. The LUDs for Alternative 1 (no action) are the same as the 

LUDs of the current Forest Plan. The LUDs of the action alternatives are different 

from Alternative 1 LUDs because of Old-growth Habitat LUD changes. Under Public 

Law 113-291, approximately 70,000 acres of NFS land were conveyed to Sealaska 

Corporation and an additional 152,000 acres were converted to LUD II. As a result

of the land conveyance, old-growth reserves (OGRs) in 16 VCUs were affected. 

Beginning in February 2015, an interagency review team of biologists worked to 

develop a biologically preferred option for modifying these OGRs that meets Forest 

Plan Appendix K criteria and to document why other proposals are not 

recommended. In September 2015, the interagency review team produced a 

biologically preferred option (see Appendix E), which was incorporated into each of 

 3 PTSQ is a new term defined in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 60. The term allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is not 

used with the 2012 planning rule. 

4

Any sale of trees pursuant to the authority granted under subparagraph (A) shall not— (iii) be advertised 

if the indicated rate is deficit (defined as the value of the timber is not sufficient to cover all logging and 

stumpage costs and provide a normal profit and risk allowance under the appraisal process of the Forest 

Service) when appraised using a residual value appraisal.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-10 Final EIS

the action alternatives. Therefore, the Old-growth Habitat LUD acres vary between 

Alternative 1 and the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5).

In addition, the Transportation and Utility Systems LUD would be removed under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. The LUD management prescription would be replaced 

by plan components under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 and would provide 

management direction for renewable energy and transportation systems corridors

(see Chapter 5 in the proposed Forest Plan). 

Forest Plan Direction Common to the Action Alternatives

Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, Forest Plan direction in Chapter 5 that is common 

is presented in Appendix F and includes: 

Young-growth Direction

(Desired Conditions) DC-YG-01, DC-YG-02, DC-YG-03, DC-YG-05; DCYG-KC-01, DC-YG-RIP-01, DC-YG-SW-01

(Suitability of Lands) SUIT-YG-BEACH-01

(Objectives) O-YG-01, O-YG-02, O-YG-03 

(Goals) GL-YG-02, GL-YG-03, GL-YG-04, GL-YG-05

(Standards) S-YG-FAC-01, S-YG-LAND-01, S-YG-REC-01, S-YG-SW-01

Management Approaches for Karst and Cave Resources, Recreation and 

Tourism, Soil and Water, and Timber

Renewable Energy Direction

All plan direction, except S-RE-SCENE-01 would not apply to Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 2, the following standard would be applied:

S-RE-SCENE-01: Apply the forest-wide standards and guidelines of 

the Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) to renewable energy 

sites.

All Management Approaches - Renewable Energy, Scenery, and Wildlife

Transportation Systems Corridors Direction

All plan direction.

All Management Approaches - Fish, Forest Health, Recreation and Tourism, 

Scenery, Timber, and Wildlife

Forest-wide Direction

All plan direction.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Framework and Expected Outputs

The no action alternative represents current management direction (2008 Forest 

Plan) and includes the application of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Roadless Rule) (36 CFR 294 Subpart B). As noted above, it also follows the 

direction provided in the July 2013 Secretary’s memo, which identified a need to 

transition away from old-growth harvest. Under this alternative, timber harvest 

would follow the existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy (USDA

Forest Service 2008c). A color map showing the phases in this strategy is provided 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-11 Alternatives

along with the FEIS. Timber harvest is currently restricted to areas within Phase 1 

of the strategy and timber harvest would have to reach 100 MMBF for two years 

before harvest could occur in Phase 2 areas. Timber management would be 

restricted to the development LUDs and would remain outside of inventoried 

roadless areas. No commercial harvest would be allowed in beach and estuary 

fringe or RMAs. All other 2008 Forest Plan management direction would be 

followed.

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of younggrowth. However, beyond that, the minimum harvest age would return to 95 percent 

of CMAI except under exemptions provided by the NFMA. 

Alternative 1 would result in the most old-growth harvest among the alternatives

over both 25-year and 100-year periods. Table 2-2 summarizes the key elements of 

Alternative 1 and Table 2-3 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and 

projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It would 

emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per 

year. As such, it is expected to produce about 8 MMBF of young growth and 38

MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-1). From Year 10 

through Year 25, it is projected to produce about 15 MMBF of young growth and 31

MMBF of old growth per year. At about Year 32, the young-growth harvest is 

expected to increase to about 41 MMBF and the old-growth harvest would decrease

to 5 MMBF per year. The young-growth harvest is expected to continue to increase

at a rapid rate after Year 32 and is expected to reach an upper limit of about 133

MMBF in about Year 38. The old-growth harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per 

year to support small and micro sales.

Over 80 percent of the Forest would remain in a natural state including inventoried 

roadless areas. Old-growth conditions would prevail on lands within these roadless 

areas. Old-growth harvest would continue at a declining rate, compared with current 

conditions, while young growth harvest would increase as young-growth stands 

mature and become increasingly economic. A predictable and sustainable supply of 

forest products would contribute to a limited integrated timber industry in Southeast 

Alaska for the foreseeable future. A mixture of old growth, recently harvested areas, 

and various ages of young growth occurs within roaded areas. Recreation, tourism, 

and subsistence opportunities emphasize natural setting types, although roaded 

opportunities expand slightly from current conditions due to construction of 

additional roads outside of inventoried roadless areas. 
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-12 Final EIS

Table 2-2

Key Elements of Alternative 1

Old-growth Harvest

• Follows 2008 Forest Plan Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy for 

Phases 1, 2, and 3

• No harvest allowed in Inventoried Roadless Areas

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including Clearcutting

• Allows no harvest in Natural Setting LUDs 

• Allows no harvest in Inventoried Roadless Areas

• Allows no commercial harvest in Beach and Estuary Fringe or in RMAs

• There is flexibility to harvest 50,000 acres at a younger age than 95% of CMAI per 

Public Law 113-291

• Scenery standards (SIOs) would not be modified for young growth

LUD Changes

• None

Other New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

• None

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 1 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-3 would result. Figure 2-2 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 1 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-3 for 

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing LUDs, the Timber Sale 

Program Adaptive Management Strategy, and lands suitable for timber production 

under Alternative 1 are included in the Map Folder of the CD version of the FEIS and 

in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy.

Management Prescriptions 

Under Alternative 1, the management prescriptions identified in the 2008 Forest 

Plan would continue to be in effect. These represent the 2008 Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

Figure 2-1

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 

Years in 5-Year Periods under Alternative 1 showing Volume (MMBF) 

contributed by Old-Growth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-13 Alternatives

Selected Outputs

Table 2-4 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

Table 2-3

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 11

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 7,464,989

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 0

Development LUD Group5 3,367,736

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 329,615

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 263,904

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres during first 25 Years

Old Growth 38,527

Young Growth 9,669

Projected Harvest Acres during first 100 Years

Old Growth 62,851

Young Growth 209,882 1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for the Transportation and Utility Systems LUD because 

it is a series of corridors with undefined width and imprecise locations. Totals may not exactly equal 

the sum of individual entries due to rounding.

2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs.

3 Includes all Natural Setting LUDs: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Municipal Watershed, Wild,

Scenic, and Recreational River, Old Growth Habitat, Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, and 

Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 

4 No LUDs meet these criteria. 

5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though lands are not suitable for timber production.

6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-14 Final EIS

Figure 2-2

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 1 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-15 Alternatives

Table 2-4

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 11 

Resource/Category Output/Measure

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 45%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 0%

Percent in Development LUD Group 20%

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 0

Percent of Existing Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 1.3%

Percent of Original (1954) Productive Old Growth remaining after 100

Years (92% in 2016) 90%

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Old Growth

(acres) 328,615

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Young Growth

(acres)

263,904

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ) 2 in MMBF 138

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 38

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 32

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 281/944

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 64/428

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years

(miles) 160/887 1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages volumes. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Framework and Expected Outputs

As in Alternative 1, this alternative would follow the existing timber sale program 

adaptive management strategy for old-growth harvest (USDA Forest Service 2008c)

(see color map accompanying the FEIS); as a result, all old-growth harvest would 

come from Phase 1, at least during the first 15 years or so. After harvest volume 

exceeds 100 MMBF for two years, it is possible that limited old-growth harvest could 

occur in Phase 2 areas. Young-growth harvest could come from any phase of the 

strategy at any time. The portions of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) that were 

roaded before the 2001 Roadless Rule and during the 2001 Roadless Rule 

exemption period for the Tongass would be available for young-growth and oldgrowth harvest. This would require rulemaking to modify 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4). If 

selected, no harvest could occur in IRAs until rulemaking is completed. No 

Roadless Area harvest outside of these roaded areas would be allowed.

Alternative 2 would differ substantially from Alternative 1 in terms of lands identified 

as suitable for young-growth timber production. Young-growth management would 

be allowed in both development and natural setting LUDs (except for 

Congressionally designated and administratively withdrawn areas, such as 

Wilderness, and islands less than 1,000 acres in size), in beach and estuary fringe, 

RMAs outside of Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) buffers, and high-vulnerability 

karst. 

Young-growth management may include clearcutting in all areas, except in RMAs

and on high-vulnerability karst, where only commercial thinning (up to 33 percent 

basal area removal) would be allowed. After 15 years, clearcutting would no longer 

be allowed in the beach and estuary fringe and only commercial thinning would be 

allowed. In addition, in beach and estuary fringe, the intent is to maintain an 
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-16 Final EIS

approximate 1,000-ft wide protected corridor adjacent and inland of any even-aged 

harvest unit to function as an alternate, low elevation, natural habitat corridor.

Scenery standards for young-growth management would be relaxed. The SIOs

would be designated as Very Low for all LUDs and distance zones. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of younggrowth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to be flexible under 

exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves flexibility in 

renewable energy development under this alternative. Scenery standards for 

renewable energy development would be relaxed to Very Low for all LUDs and 

distance zones.

Among the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would provide the largest amount of 

timber volume (old growth and young growth combined), including the largest 

amount of young-growth volume from lands suitable for timber production. It would 

result in the smallest amount of old growth timber volume over both 25-year and 

100-year periods. Table 2-5 summarizes the key elements of Alternative 2 and 

Table 2-6 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest 

acres under this alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1), 

emphasizing young growth and minimizing old growth. As such, it is expected to 

produce an average of about 22 MMBF of young growth and 24 MMBF of old growth 

per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-3). From Years 11 through 15, 

Alternative 2 is projected to produce an average of 61 MMBF of young growth and 5 

MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 2 would likely reach a full transition 

harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth about Year 12. Young-growth harvest is 

expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 12 and is expected to 

reach an upper limit of about 120 MMBF in Year 17. The old-growth harvest rate 

would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

Over 80 percent of the Forest would remain in a natural state. The portions of the 

IRAs that were roaded before the 2001 Roadless Rule and during the 2001 

Roadless Rule exemption period for the Tongass would be available for harvest

after rulemaking. Old-growth conditions would prevail on forest lands within IRAs

that have not been roaded. Following the transition period, the young-growth based 

timber industry would have the potential for substantial growth as more younggrowth stands become economic to harvest. Young growth may be harvested by 

clearcutting and other prescriptions in natural setting LUDs and beach and estuary 

fringe, but only commercial thinning (33 percent basal area removal) would occur in 

RMAs outside of TTRA buffers. A small old-growth based industry would continue 

after transition with an annual volume of about 5 MMBF being offered through the 

small and micro sale programs. A mixture of old growth, recently harvested areas, 

and various ages of young growth would occur within the roaded IRAs. Recreation, 

tourism, and subsistence opportunities would continue to emphasize natural setting 

types, although some additional roaded opportunities would be developed. Scenery

impacts would occur in some visually sensitive areas because scenery standards for 

young growth harvest would be Very Low. 

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 2 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-6 would result. Figure 2-4 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 2 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-6 for 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-17 Alternatives

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing both LUDs and lands suitable 

for timber production for Alternative 2 are included in the Map Folder of the CD 

version of the FEIS and in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy.

Figure 2-3

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 

5-Year Periods under Alternative 2 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed 

by Old-Growth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 

Management Prescriptions 

The proposed Forest Plan that accompanies this EIS represents the Forest Plan if 

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative) were to be selected. Many of the changes 

reflected in the Forest Plan are consistent with Alternative 2, but some are not. The 

similarities and differences among the alternatives, with respect to the Forest Plan, 

are detailed in Appendix F to this EIS.

Selected Outputs

Table 2-7 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-18 Final EIS

Table 2-5

Key Elements of Alternative 2

Old-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

• The portions of IRAs that were previously roaded would be available for harvest

after rulemaking.

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, and entry into all 

phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy without 

regard to harvest volumes. 

• Allows harvest in natural setting LUDs, except for Congressionally designated and 

administratively withdrawn areas and islands smaller than 1,000 acres.

• The portions of IRAs that were previously roaded would be available for harvest 

after rulemaking.

• Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe, in high-vulnerability 

karst, and in RMAs outside of TTRA buffers (details below). 

• Clearcutting is allowed on all lands suitable for timber production (including 

natural setting LUDs), except RMAs and high-vulnerability karst where only 

commercial thinning is allowed. The maximum removal in RMAs outside of TTRA 

buffers is 33 percent (basal area). Clearcutting in beach and estuary fringe is not 

allowed after 15 years.

• In beach and estuary fringe, the intent is to maintain an approximate 1,000-ft wide 

protected corridor adjacent and inland of any even-aged harvest unit. 

• There is flexibility to harvest at a younger age than 95 percent of CMAI throughout 

the life of the Plan.

• Scenery standards would be relaxed to Very Low SIO for young-growth harvest

LUD Changes

• Old-growth Habitat LUDs are modified to correspond with the biologically 

preferred option in areas where they were adversely affected by land 

conveyances and other changes resulting from Public Law 113-291.

• The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

• Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan (including relaxation of 

SIO to Very Low for renewable energy development).

• Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-19 Alternatives

Table 2-6

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 21

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 1,005,922

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 6,467,437

Development LUD Group5 3,359,367

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 349,380

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 374,714

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres after 25 Years

Old Growth 15,027

Young Growth 63,787

Projected Harvest Acres after 100 Years

Old Growth 32,609

Young Growth 335,344 1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

Corridors because the projects are an undefined width and imprecise locations and not all renewable 

energy sites are known. Totals may not exactly equal the sum of individual entries due to rounding.

2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs.

3 Includes the following Natural Setting LUDs: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Enacted Municipal 

Watershed, and Wild River

4 Includes the following Natural Setting LUDs: Scenic, and Recreational River, Old Growth Habitat, 

Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 

5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though it is technically not a Development LUD.

6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-20 Final EIS

Figure 2-4

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 2
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-21 Alternatives 

Table 2-7 

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 21 

Resource/Category Output/Measure 

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35% 

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 6% 

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 39% 

Percent in Development LUD Group 20% 

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 11,289 

Percent of Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 0.7% 

Percent of Original Productive Old Growth remaining after 100 Years 

(92% in 2016) 91% 

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Old Growth 

(acres) 349,380 

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Young Growth 

(acres) 374,714 

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ) 2 in MMBF 125 

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 17 

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 12 

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 260/1,056 

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 125/600 

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years 

(miles) 256/1,191 

1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages and include sawlog plus utility. 

Alternative 3 

Framework and Expected Outcomes 

Alternative 3 would allow old-growth harvest only in Phase 1 of the existing timber 

sale program adaptive management strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008c) (see 

color map accompanying this FEIS) but would allow young-growth harvest in all 

phases. This alternative would allow young-growth and old-growth harvest in 2001 

Roadless Rule IRAs. If this alternative were selected, harvest in IRAs would be 

deferred until agency rulemaking modifies 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4) (2001). 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 in that it identifies lands as suitable for younggrowth timber production in both development and natural setting LUDs (except for 

Congressionally designated areas such as Wilderness, administratively withdrawn 

areas, and islands less than 1,000 acres in size), as well as in beach and estuary 

fringe and high-vulnerability karst, but not in RMAs. Young-growth management 

may include clearcutting in all areas, except in beach and estuary fringe and on 

high-vulnerability karst, where only commercial thinning is allowed. 

In addition, for young-growth harvest units larger than 20 acres in VCUs that have 

had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended that 30 percent of the young 

growth stand acres should be left. This legacy provision would be described as a 

Management Approach in the Forest Plan. 

Scenery standards for young growth management would be reduced by one level 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. SIOs would be reduced as follows: High would be 

reduced to Moderate, Moderate would be reduced to Low, and Low and Very Low 

would become Very Low. 
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-22 Final EIS

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of young

growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to be flexible under 

exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves flexibility in 

renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO (scenery standard)

for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones.

Alternative 3 would provide the second largest amount of timber volume (old growth 

and young growth combined). It would result in the second lowest harvest of old 

growth over both the 25-year and 100-year periods. Table 2-8 summarizes the key 

elements of Alternative 3 and Table 2-9 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped 

suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth 

and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It would

emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per 

year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 20 MMBF of young 

growth and 26 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-5). 

From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an average of 50 MMBF of 

young growth and about 5 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 3 would likely 

reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth at about Year 13.

Young-growth harvest is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 

13 and is expected to reach an upper limit of about 117 MMBF in Year 17. The oldgrowth harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro 

sales.

Over 80 percent of the Forest would remain in a natural state. Old-growth 

conditions would prevail on forest lands within the IRAs. Young-growth harvest 

would be increasingly emphasized during a transition period and the existing timber 

industry maintained and given the opportunity to transition to a dominantly younggrowth based industry over the next 10 to 15 years. Following the transition period, 

the young-growth based timber industry would have the potential for substantial 

growth as more young-growth stands become economic to harvest. Young growth 

would be harvested by clearcutting and other prescriptions in natural setting LUDs, 

but only commercial thinning would occur in beach and estuary fringe. A small oldgrowth based industry would continue after transition with an annual volume of 

about 5 MMBF being offered through the small and micro sale programs. A mixture 

of old growth, recently harvested areas, and various ages of young growth would 

occur within roaded areas. Recreation, tourism, and subsistence opportunities 

would continue to emphasize natural setting types, although some additional roaded 

opportunities would be developed. Limited scenery impacts would occur in some 

visually sensitive areas because scenery standards for young growth harvest would 

be reduced by one level compared with the current Forest Plan.

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 3 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-9 would result. Figure 2-6 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 3 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-9 for 

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing both LUDs and lands suitable 

for timber production for Alternative 3 are included in the Map Folder of the CD 

version of the FEIS and in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-23 Alternatives

Figure 2-5

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 

Years in 5-Year Periods under Alternative 3 showing Volume (MMBF) 

contributed by Old Growth (OG) and Young Growth (YG)

Management Prescriptions 

The Forest Plan that accompanies this EIS represents the Forest Plan if Alternative 

5 (Preferred Alternative) were to be selected. Many of the changes reflected in the 

proposed Forest Plan are consistent with Alternative 3, but some are not. The 

similarities and differences among the alternatives, with respect to the Forest Plan, 

are detailed in Appendix F to this EIS. 

Selected Outputs

Table 2-10 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-24 Final EIS

Table 2-8

Key Elements of Alternative 3

Old-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

• Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) would be available for harvest after rulemaking.

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, and entry into all 

phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy without regard 

to harvest volumes.

• Allows harvest in natural setting LUDs, except for congressionally designated and 

administratively withdrawn areas and islands smaller than 1,000 acres.

• IRAs would be available for harvest after rulemaking.

• Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe but not in RMAs.

• Clearcutting is allowed in all areas except beach and estuary fringe and highvulnerability karst, where only Commercial Thinning is allowed.

• Management Approach to provide legacy in young-growth harvest units larger than 

20 acres in certain VCUs.

• There is flexibility to harvest at a younger age than 95 percent of CMAI throughout 

the life of the Plan.

• Scenery standards for young growth management would be relaxed; SIOs would 

be reduced by one level relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (i.e., High is reduced to 

Moderate, Moderate is reduced to Low, and Low and Very Low become Very Low).

LUD Changes

• Old-growth Habitat LUDs are modified to correspond with the biologically preferred 

option in areas where they were adversely affected by land conveyances and other 

changes resulting from Public Law 113-291.

• The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

• Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest.

• Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-25 Alternatives

Table 2-9

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 31

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 1,005,922

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 6,467,437

Development LUD Group5 3,359,367

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 516,566

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 349,872

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres after 25 Years

Old Growth 16,599

Young Growth 53,734

Projected Harvest Acres after 100 Years

Old Growth 35,568

Young Growth 313,216

1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

because transportation projects are a series of corridors with undefined width and imprecise locations 

and not all renewable energy sites are known. Totals may not exactly equal the sum of individual 

entries due to rounding.

2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs.

3 Includes the following Natural Setting LUDs: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Enacted Municipal 

Watershed, and Wild River

4 Includes the following Natural Setting LUDs: Scenic, and Recreational River, Old Growth Habitat, 

Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 

5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though it is technically not a Development LUD.

6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-26 Final EIS

Figure 2-6

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-Growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 3
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-27 Alternatives

Table 2-10

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 31

Resource/Category Output/Measure

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 6%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 39%

Percent in Development LUD Group 20%

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 28,847

Percent of Existing Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 0.7%

Percent of Original Productive Old Growth remaining after 100 Years 

(92% in 2016) 91%

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Old Growth

(acres) 516,566

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Young Growth

(acres) 349,872

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ)2 in MMBF 121

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 17

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 13

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 245/1,020

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 110/566

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years 

(miles) 229/1,129 1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages volumes. 

Alternative 4

Framework and Expected Outcomes

Like Alternative 3, this alternative would allow old-growth harvest only in Phase 1 of 

the existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy (see color map 

accompanying this FEIS), but in contrast with Alternative 3, it would also limit younggrowth harvest to only Phase 1. Similar to Alternative 1, this alternative includes the 

application of the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Alternative 4 would allow young-growth management only in the development LUDs.

Harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe and on high-vulnerability karst, but 

only commercial thinning is allowed. No harvest is allowed in RMAs. Young growth 

management may include clearcutting in other areas. 

In addition, for young-growth harvest units larger than 20 acres in VCUs that have 

had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended that 30 percent of the young 

growth stand acres should be left. This legacy provision would be described as a 

Management Approach in the Forest Plan. 

No change would occur in scenery standards relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of younggrowth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to be flexible under 

exceptions allowed by NFMA.

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves flexibility in 

renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO (scenery standard) 

for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-28 Final EIS

Alternative 4 would provide the smallest amount of timber volume (old growth and 

young growth combined) and the smallest amounts of young-growth volume. It 

would result in the second highest harvest of old growth during both the 25-year and 

100-year periods. Table 2-11 summarizes the key elements of Alternative 4, and 

Table 2-12 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected 

harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It would

emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per 

year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 11 MMBF of young 

growth and 35 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-7). 

From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an average of 26 MMBF of 

young growth and about 20 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 4 would likely 

reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth about Year 16. Younggrowth harvest is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 16 and 

is expected to reach an upper limit of 87 MMBF about Year 18. The old-growth 

harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

Over 80 percent of the Forest would remain in a natural state, including the 2001 

Roadless Rule IRAs. Old-growth conditions would prevail on forest lands within the 

IRAs. Young-growth harvest would be increasingly emphasized during a transition 

period as the existing timber industry is maintained and given the opportunity to 

transition to a predominantly young-growth based industry over the next 10 to 15 

years. Following the transition period, the young-growth based timber industry 

would have the potential for substantial growth as more young-growth stands 

become economic to harvest. Young growth would be harvested only by 

commercial thinning in beach and estuary fringe and on high-vulnerability karst. A 

small old-growth based industry would continue after transition with an annual 

volume of about 5 MMBF being offered through the small and micro sale programs. 

A mixture of old growth, recently harvested areas, and various ages of young growth 

would occur within IRAs. Recreation, tourism, and subsistence opportunities would 

continue to emphasize natural setting types, although some additional roaded 

opportunities would be developed. Effects on scenery would be similar to those 

permitted by the current Forest Plan.

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 4 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-12 would result. Figure 2-8 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 4 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-12 for 

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing both LUDs and lands suitable 

for timber production for Alternative 4 are included in the Map Folder of the CD 

version of the FEIS and in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy. 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-29 Alternatives

Figure 2-7

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 

Years in 5-Year Periods under Alternative 4 showing Volume (MMBF) 

contributed by Old Growth (OG) and Young Growth (YG)

Management Prescriptions 

The Forest Plan that accompanies this FEIS represents the Forest Plan if Alternative 

5 (Preferred Alternative) were to be selected. Many of the changes reflected in the 

proposed Forest Plan are consistent with Alternative 4, but some are not. The 

similarities and differences among the alternatives, with respect to the Forest Plan, 

are detailed in Appendix F to this FEIS. 

Selected Outputs

Table 2-13 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-30 Final EIS

Table 2-11

Key Elements of Alternative 4

Old-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

• No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in development LUDs, including clearcutting, but allows entry only in 

Phase 1 of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy.

• Allows no harvest in natural setting LUDs.

• Allows no harvest in IRAs.

• Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe and in high-vulnerability 

karst within development LUDs, but no harvest is allowed in RMAs.

• Clearcutting is not allowed in beach and estuary fringe and high-vulnerability karst;

only commercial thinning is allowed.

• Management Approach to provide legacy in young-growth harvest units larger than 

20 acres in certain VCUs.

• There is flexibility to harvest before 95 percent of CMAI throughout the life of the 

Plan.

• No changes would occur in scenery standards relative to the 2008 Forest Plan.

LUD Changes

• Old-Growth Habitat LUDs are modified to correspond with the biologically preferred

option in areas where they were adversely affected by land conveyances and other 

changes resulting from Public Law 113-291.

• The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

• Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-31 Alternatives

Table 2-12

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 41

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 7,473,359

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 0

Development LUD Group5 3,359,367

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 269,135

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 263,710

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres after 25 Years

Old Growth 23,255

Young Growth 40,760

Projected Harvest Acres after 100 Years

Old Growth 42,597

Young Growth 234,885 1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems

Corridors because the transportation projects are a series of corridors with undefined width and 

imprecise locations and not all renewable energy site locations are known. Totals may not exactly 

equal the sum of individual entries due to rounding. 2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs. 3 Includes all Natural Setting LUDs: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Municipal Watershed, Wild, 

Scenic, and Recreational River, Old Growth Habitat, Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, and 

Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 4 Includes no LUDs that are suitable for YG harvest. 5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though it is technically not a Development LUD. 6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-32 Final EIS

Figure 2-8

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young Growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 4
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-33 Alternatives

Table 2-13

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 41

Resource/Category Output/Measure

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 45%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 0%

Percent in Development LUD Group 20%

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 0

Percent of Existing Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 0.9%

Percent of Original Productive Old Growth remaining after 100 Years 

(92% in 2016) 91%

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Old Growth

(acres) 269,135

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Young Growth

(acres) 263,710

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ) 3 in MMBF 92

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 18

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 16

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 257/871

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 97/445

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years

(miles) 209/900 1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages volumes. 

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative)

Framework and Expected Outcomes

Alternative 5 is the Preferred Alternative. This alternative is based on the

recommendations from the Tongass Advisory Committee (TAC), a formally 

established Federal Advisory Committee (see Appendix B of the Forest Plan). The 

establishment of the TAC represents a turning point in Tongass management 

seeking new approaches, practices, and responses. The TAC offers a regionally 

focused, collaborative path toward an innovative opportunity for a viable young 

growth timber industry while honoring the suite of values – economic, ecological, 

social, and cultural – inherent in the Forest.

Like Alternatives 3 and 4, this alternative would allow old-growth harvest only within 

Phase 1 of the timber sale program adaptive management strategy (see color map 

accompanying this FEIS). As in Alternatives 1 and 4, the 2001 Roadless Rule would 

apply and no old-growth or young-growth harvest would occur in roadless areas. In 

addition, old-growth harvest is excluded from all Tongass 77 (T77)5 watersheds and 

TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas (Albert and Schoen 2007). These oldgrowth harvest exclusion areas are shown on the large color map for Alternative 5

that accompanies this FEIS.

As in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, Alternative 5 would allow young-growth harvest in all 

three phases of the timber sale program adaptive management strategy. It would 

allow young-growth management in development LUDs and in the Old-growth 

 5 The Tongass 77 (T77) refers to value comparison units (VCUs), which approximate major watersheds 

located on National Forest System lands that Trout Unlimited, Alaska Program identified as priority 

salmon watersheds. As a result of the Sealaska Land Entitlement Finalization in the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), 

there was a net reduction in the T77 watersheds from 77 to 73. To provide clarity and consistency, the 

T77 nomenclature will continue to be used in this document when referring to these priority watersheds.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-34 Final EIS

Habitat LUD including harvest in beach and estuary fringe and RMAs outside of 

TTRA buffers within these same LUDs. However, young-growth harvest in the Oldgrowth Habitat LUD, beach and estuary fringe, and RMAs outside of TTRA buffers 

would be allowed only during the first 15 years after Plan approval, and created 

openings for commercial harvest (up to 10 acres and a maximum removal of up to 

35 percent of the acres of the original harvested stand) or commercial thinning 

would be allowed. In beach and estuary fringe, a 200-foot no-commercial harvest 

buffer adjacent to the shoreline would be required. Along lake shorelines, a 100-foot 

no-cut commercial harvest buffer would be established. Scenery standards (SIOs) 

for young growth management would be reduced to Very Low for all distance zones 

in the development LUDs only. This standard would also apply when young-growth 

and old-growth harvests are planned in the same Viewshed.

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of younggrowth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to be flexible under 

exceptions allowed by NFMA.

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves flexibility in 

renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO (scenery standard) 

for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones.

Alternative 5 would provide the second smallest amount of timber volume (old 

growth and young growth combined) among the alternatives, but the second largest

amount of old-growth volume among the action alternatives. Table 2-14 

summarizes the key elements of Alternative 5 and Table 2-15 summarizes the LUD

acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for 

young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It would

emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per 

year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 12 MMBF of young 

growth and 34 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-9). 

From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an average of 28 MMBF of 

young growth and about 18 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 5 would likely 

reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth about Year 16. Younggrowth harvest is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 16 and 

is expected to reach an upper limit of 98 MMBF about Year 18. The old-growth 

harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

The majority (over 80 percent) of the Forest would remain in a natural state including

IRAs. Old-growth conditions would prevail on forest lands within the IRAs. Younggrowth harvest would be increasingly emphasized during a transition period and the 

existing timber industry is maintained and given the opportunity to transition to a 

dominantly young-growth based industry over the next 10 to 15 years. Following the 

transition period, the young-growth based timber industry has the potential for 

growth as more young-growth stands become economic to harvest. Young growth 

is harvested only by patch cutting or commercial thinning in non-development LUDs, 

beach and estuary fringe, and RMAs outside of TTRA buffers. An old-growth based 

industry would continue after transition with an annual volume of about 5 MMBF 

being offered through the small and micro sale programs. A mixture of old growth, 

recently harvested areas, and various ages of young growth would occur within 

roaded areas. Recreation, tourism, and subsistence opportunities would continue to 

emphasize natural setting types, although some additional roaded opportunities 

would be developed. Scenery impacts would occur in some visually sensitive areas 

because scenery standards for young growth harvest would be very low. 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-35 Alternatives

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 5 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-11 would result. Figure 2-10 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 5 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-15 for 

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing both LUDs and lands suitable 

for timber production for Alternative 5 are included in the Map Folder of the CD 

version of the FEIS and in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy.

Figure 2-9

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 

Years in 5-Year Periods under Alternative 5 showing Volume (MMBF) 

contributed by Old-Growth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 

Management Prescriptions

Under Alternative 5, the management prescriptions identified in the Forest Plan 

(accompanying this FEIS) would be adopted. A track changes version of is 

available online. Clarifications and deletions to the 2008 Forest Plan are shown in 

Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 and additions to the Forest Plan are provided in Chapter 5.

The similarities and differences among the alternatives, with respect to the Forest 

Plan, are detailed in Appendix F to this FEIS.

Selected Outputs

Table 2-16 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-36 Final EIS

Table 2-14

Key Elements of Alternative 5

Old-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

• No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

• No harvest is allowed within the T77 watersheds or the TNC/Audubon 

conservation priority watersheds.

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, and entry into all 

phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy without 

regard to harvest levels.

• Allows harvest in Old Growth Habitat LUDs, but not in other natural setting LUDs

or on islands less than 1,000 acres

• No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

• Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe outside of a 200-foot 

buffer and in RMAs outside of TTRA buffers.

• A 100-ft. no-cut buffer is established around all lakes.

• In Old Growth Habitat LUDs, Beach Fringe (outside of the 200-foot buffer) and in 

RMAs outside of TTRA buffers, clearcutting is not allowed, but patch cuts (≤10-

acre openings and a maximum of 35% removal) is allowed, along with 

commercial thinning. Harvest is allowed in these land categories only during the 

first 15 years after plan approval. 

• There is flexibility to harvest at a younger age than 95 percent of CMAI throughout 

the life of the Plan.

• The scenery standards (SIOs) would be reduced to Very Low in development 

LUDs only.

LUD Changes

• Old Growth Habitat LUDs are modified to correspond with the biologically 

preferred option in areas where they were negatively affected by land 

conveyances and other changes resulting from Public Law 113-291.

• The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Chapter 5)

• Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-37 Alternatives

Table 2-15

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 51

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 6,270,909

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 1,202,450

Development LUD Group 5 3,359,367

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 229,060

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 338,973

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres after 25 Years

Old Growth 23,813

Young Growth 43,316

Projected Harvest Acres after 100 Years

Old Growth 42,479

Young Growth 284,144 1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

Corridors because the transportation projects are a series of corridors with undefined width and 

imprecise locations and not all renewable energy site locations are known. Totals may not exactly 

equal the sum of individual entries due to rounding.

2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs.

3 Includes all Natural Setting LUDs except Old Growth Habitat: LUD II, Research Natural Area, 

Municipal Watershed, Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River, Special Interest Area, Remote 

Recreation, and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 

4 Includes Old Growth Habitat LUD.

5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though it is technically not a Development LUD.

6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-38 Final EIS

Figure 2-10

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young Growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 5
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-39 Alternatives

Table 2-16

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 51

Resource/Category Output/Measure

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 37%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 7%

Percent in Development LUD Group 20%

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 0

Percent of Existing Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 0.8%

Percent of Original Productive Old Growth remaining after 100 Years 

(92% in 2015) 91%

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production-Old Growth

(acres) 229,060

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production-Young Growth

(acres) 338,973

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ)2 in MMBF 98

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 18

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 16

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 267/994

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 102/527

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years

(miles) 219/1,058 1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages volumes. 

Comparison of the Alternatives

This section briefly compares the environmental consequences of the five 

alternatives with respect to the significant issues described in Chapter 1. This 

comparison is based on the effects analyses presented in Chapter 3. 

The following subsections provide the issue statement for each of the significant 

issues described in Chapter 1, and the units of measure used to analyze their 

effects. Hereafter the term “issues” is synonymous with “significant issues.”

Following these subsections, the alternatives are compared with respect to each 

issue. Important comparison tables are also presented. Table 2-17 (at the end of 

this section) compares each alternative in terms of the key elements that define the 

alternatives. Table 2-18 compares each alternative in terms of the quantitative and 

qualitative measures associated with each alternative. This table allows the reader 

to compare the effects of the alternatives on all issues simultaneously, so that a 

cumulative picture of the net effects can be obtained. 

Issue 1 – Young-growth Transition

Issue Statement: The Secretary of Agriculture directed the Forest Service to 

transition to a young-growth-based timber management program on the Tongass 

National Forest in 10 to 15 years, which is more rapid than planned for in the 2008 

Forest Plan. This transition is intended to support the Tongass managing its forest 

for an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable forest management 

program and reduce old-growth harvest while providing economic timber to support 

the local forest products industry during the transition.

Units of Measure

• Lands suitable for timber production

• Acres of harvest of young growth vs. old growth over time
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-40 Final EIS

• Time required to fully transition to young-growth harvest

• Financial efficiency (discounted net revenue)

• Number of annualized direct jobs supported

Comparison

The purpose and need for this project is primarily based on a memorandum from the 

Secretary of Agriculture (see Chapter 1) that directs management of the Tongass 

National Forest to expedite the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting 

and towards a forest products industry that utilizes predominantly second-growth –

or young-growth – forests. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum also guides that the 

transition should be implemented in a manner that preserves a viable timber industry 

that provides jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. USDA's goal is 

to effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 years, so that at the end of this 

period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth. This 

timeframe will conserve old growth forests while allowing the forest industry time to 

adapt.

Because of the Secretary’s memorandum, the existing condition emphasizes a 

transition to young growth and minimizes old-growth harvest, but does this within the 

constraints of the 2008 Forest Plan. Alternative 1 (no action) would result in full 

transition to a predominantly young-growth-based industry in about 32 years, well 

beyond the 15 year goal presented in the Secretary’s memorandum. In contrast, all 

of the action alternatives would result in a full transition in about 12 to 16 years. 

Because these timeframes represent full transition, the period in which the “vast 

majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth” is expected to be about 

10 to 15 years for the action alternatives. Of the action alternatives, the fastest 

transition (12 years) would occur with Alternative 2 and the slowest transition (16 

years) would occur with Alternatives 4 and 5.

All of the alternatives are expected to support from 184 to 231 annualized direct jobs 

during the first decade, depending on the portion of total harvest that is exported. 

Total estimated jobs are very similar across the alternatives, with the highest 

number of direct jobs supported by Alternative 2 and the lowest number of direct 

jobs supported by Alternative 1. In addition, each alternative is expected to meet the 

projected demand for Tongass timber. Therefore, each alternative is expected to 

meet the criterion of maintaining a viable industry. However, it is unclear how 

quickly industry will be able to “retool” mills and harvesting equipment and how 

markets will react to changing from old-growth to young-growth forest products; 

thus, this criterion is associated with a relatively high degree of uncertainty.

Under all alternatives, the harvest of old growth would diminish over time and the 

harvest of young growth would increase. Therefore, all of the alternatives would 

“conserve old-growth forests.” The largest old-growth harvest in the first 25 years 

would be about 39,000 acres with Alternative 1. Each of the action alternatives 

would harvest less old growth, ranging from 15,000 acres with Alternative 2 to 

24,000 acres with Alternative 5. The same pattern among the alternatives occurs 

with the 100-year harvest as well.

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy

Issue Statement: The development of renewable energy projects on the Tongass 

would help Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil fuel dependence, stimulate 

economic development, and lower carbon emissions in the Region.

Units of Measure

• Improved flexibility in siting and development of renewable energy projects
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-41 Alternatives

Comparison

Another important part of the purpose and need for this project is the purpose of 

establishing new direction in the Forest Plan so that renewable energy development 

is more permissible. There is a need to stimulate economic development in 

Southeast Alaska communities, and provide low-carbon energy alternatives, thereby 

displacing the use of fossil fuel. Under the 2008 Forest Plan, siting of energy 

projects is limited in certain LUDs, and it would remain that way under Alternative 1. 

Under each of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5), changes would be 

made to the Forest Plan that would result in improved flexibility in siting and 

development of renewable energy projects.

Issue 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

Issue Statement: Timber harvest and road building that occurred in inventoried 

roadless areas (IRAs) before the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Roadless Rule) was enacted and during the 2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 

75136) changed the values or features that often characterize IRAs in some 

locations. In addition, whether or not the Tongass would manage the Forest under 

the 2003 Tongass Exemption or not is the subject of ongoing litigation. Currently, 

the Tongass does not enter roadless areas for commercial timber harvest or road 

construction. However, in the future, this could change.

Units of Measure

• Acres of lands suitable for timber production within IRAs under each alternative

• Roadless characteristics protected under each alternative

Comparison

Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 IRAs are withdrawn from timber production and not 

suitable for timber production (FSH 1909.12, chapter 60, section 61.11). In 

Alternative 2, IRAs that were previously roaded would be available for road 

construction and timber harvest and in Alternative 3, all IRAs would be available for 

road construction and timber harvest. In both Alternatives 2 and 3, entry into IRAs 

would not be permitted without rulemaking or, in the case of Alternative 3, if the 

2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 75136) is reinstated. Estimated acres of timber 

harvest in IRAs over 100 years would range from 0 acres for Alternatives 1, 4, and 

5, to 11,000 acres for Alternative 2, to 29,000 acres for Alternative 3. The protection 

of roadless characteristics would be directly proportional to the projected acres of 

timber harvest with Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 providing the most protection, Alternative 

2 providing the second most protection, and Alternative 3 providing the least 

protection.

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation 

Strategy

Issue Statement: Old-growth timber harvest has changed the composition and 

spatial patterns of terrestrial wildlife habitats. How the resulting young-growth is 

managed may influence the future ecological integrity of the landscape at various 

scales. Changes made to suitable lands designated for development, and to plan 

components (e.g., standards and guidelines) may affect old-growth habitat for 

wildlife and the Tongass old-growth conservation strategy and contributing elements 

to old-growth reserves (e.g., riparian, beach and estuary habitats).

Units of Measure

• Acres of productive old growth (POG) protected under each alternative
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-42 Final EIS

• Acres of high-volume POG protected under each alternative

• Acres of large-tree POG protected under each alternative

• Acres of young-growth harvest in beach and estuary fringe by alternative

• Acres of young-growth harvest in Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) by 

alternative

• Acres of young-growth harvest in the Old-growth Habitat LUD and other natural 

setting LUDs by alternative

• Average total and open road densities and percentage of Wildlife Analysis Areas 

(WAAs) in road density categories on NFS and all lands

• Indicators of habitat capability using habitat models

• Cumulative harvest and road development on all Southeast Alaska lands

Comparison

Relative to old-growth habitat conservation, Alternative 1 would have the highest 

harvest (1.3 percent of existing POG), followed by Alternative 4 (0.9 percent of 

existing POG), followed by Alternative 5 (0.8 percent of existing POG), followed by 

Alternatives 2 and 3 (0.7 percent of existing POG). The change in the percent of 

original POG remaining after 100 years would follow the same pattern. Currently, 92 

percent of original POG is remaining; under all alternatives this percentage would 

drop by about 1 percent after 100 years. Alternative 1 would result in about 90 

percent remaining and the action alternatives would each result in about 91 percent 

remaining. This same pattern would continue for the percent reduction in highvolume POG. The existing 86 percent of original high-volume POG remaining would 

be reduced to about 85 percent for all alternatives after 100 years. For large-tree 

POG, about 79 percent of the original acres exist. Alternative 1 would result in 

about 78 percent remaining after 100 years, while the action alternatives would 

maintain about 79 percent.

Young-growth harvest in the beach and estuary fringe would be lowest under 

Alternative 1 (no harvest). Under the action alternatives, no harvest of POG would 

occur, but impacts resulting from young growth harvest would be highest under 

Alternative 2, which would include the second highest amount of young-growth 

acres and would allow clearcutting. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, considerable 

young-growth acreage would be harvested, but using commercial thinning, which 

would result in less effects than clearcutting. Alternative 5 would have the lowest 

effect on beach and estuary fringe among the action alternatives because younggrowth acreage would be lowest and only patch cutting (with created openings up to 

10 acres and a maximum removal of up to 35 percent of the acres of the original 

harvested stand) or commercial thinning would be allowed and only during the first 

15 years after Forest Plan approval with a one-time entry restriction.

For RMAs, the lowest effects would be associated with Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, 

which would permit no harvest in RMAs. Alternative 2 would have the greatest 

harvest impacts in RMAs because it would include the highest amount of acreage 

and would allow clearcutting during the first 15 years of Forest Plan approval and 

commercial thinning thereafter. Effects to RMAs would be lower under Alternative 5 

due to a lower amount of acres harvested and only patch cutting or commercial 

thinning would be permitted and only during the first 15 years after Forest Plan 

approval with a one-time entry restriction. 

In the Old-growth Habitat LUD, Alternatives 1 and 4 would allow no young-growth 

harvest. The greatest amount of young-growth harvest in the Old-growth Habitat 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-43 Alternatives

LUD would occur under Alternative 2, followed by Alternatives 3 and 5. Effects 

would be greatest under Alternative 2 because it would allow clearcutting and have 

the largest harvest acreage, and less under Alternative 3 because only commercial 

thinning would be allowed, followed by Alternative 5 which would allow only patch 

cutting or thinning and only during the first 15 years after Forest Plan approval and 

with a one-time entry restriction.

Average total road density across the Forest (NFS lands only) under all alternatives 

would be approximately 0.23 mile per square mile after 100 years, an increase of 

0.03 to 0.04 mile per square mile above existing levels. Approximately 83 percent of 

WAAs would have total road densities ranging between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square 

mile under all alternatives. Total roads are conservatively defined to include open 

roads, closed roads, and decommissioned roads. Average open road density 

across the Forest (NFS lands only) would be approximately 0.09 mile per square 

mile, an increase of approximately 0.005 mile per square mile under all alternatives. 

Approximately 96 percent of WAAs would have open road densities ranging 

between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square mile under all alternatives. Therefore, any 

potential increase in hunter access or risk of overharvest for wildlife species would 

be minor and localized, and would not be measurable at the forest-wide scale under 

any of the alternatives. 

The transition to young-growth management would slow the long-term decrease in 

deer habitat capability due to the reduction in POG harvest. Based on Interagency 

Deer Habitat Capability model outputs, deer habitat capability under all of the 

alternatives would decline about 1 percent over 100 years. Forest-wide all 

alternatives would maintain about 99 percent of the existing deer habitat capability. 

Results based on the Forage Resource Evaluation System for Deer (or FRESH deer 

model) are very similar; Forest-wide, the existing level of habitat quality would be 

decline about 1 percent after 100 years under all alternatives.

Cumulative POG harvest on all landownerships would be greatest under Alternative 

1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 (in that order). Cumulative effects would be 

least under the alternatives that propose the shortest young-growth transition time. 

After 100 years of Forest Plan implementation and non-NFS harvests, approximately 

83 percent of the original (1954) total POG forest, about 76 percent of the original 

high-volume POG, and 63 to 64 percent of the original large-tree POG would be 

maintained on all landownerships under all of the alternatives. 

Cumulative road densities (all land ownerships) would be similar among alternatives 

(about 0.45 mile per square mile), representing an increase of about 0.11 to 0.12 

miles per square mile above current conditions. Open road densities for all land 

ownerships would increase from about 0.22 mile per square mile to about 0.24 mile 

per square mile after 100 years under all alternatives.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-44 Final EIS

Table 2-17

Comparison of Key Elements of the Alternatives

Element

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Timber Sale 

Program Adaptive 

Management

Strategy Phases

(see large color 

map)

2008 

Forest Plan

2008 Forest Plan,

except can enter 

Phases 2 and 3 for 

YG without 

limitation1

2008 Forest Plan, 

except Phase 1

only for OG; can 

enter Phases 2 and 

3 for YG without 

limitation

2008 Forest Plan, 

except Phase 1 

only for YG and OG

2008 Forest Plan, except 

Phase 1 only for OG; can 

enter Phases 2 and 3 for 

YG without limitation 

Harvest in 

Roadless2 No entry

Roadless entry 

permitted in

previously roaded 

IRAs after 

rulemaking

Roadless entry 

permitted (all IRAs 

with suitable lands)

after rulemaking

No entry No entry

Harvest in T77 

Watersheds and 

TNC-Audubon 

Conservation 

Priority Areas

Harvest permitted Harvest permitted Harvest permitted Harvest permitted No OG Harvest permitted

Young-growth 

Harvest in Natural 

Setting LUDs

No entry Clearcutting Clearcutting No entry

Old Growth Habitat LUD

only; Created openings

(<10 acres and <35% of 

stand) or thinning; no 

harvest after 15 years

Young-growth 

Harvest in Beach 

and Estuary Fringe 

No entry

Clearcutting in 

Beach Fringe for 

first 15 years; only 

Commercial. 

Thinning thereafter

Commercial 

Thinning only

Commercial

Thinning only

Created openings (<10 

acres and <35% of stand)

or thinning; no harvest 

after 15 years

Young-growth 

Harvest in Riparian 

Management Areas

No entry

Commercial

Thinning only

outside of TTRA; 

33% maximum 

stand removal

No entry No entry

Created openings (<10 

acres and <35% of 

stand) or thinning, outside 

of TTRA; no harvest after 

15 years; additional 100-ft 

buffer on lakes 

Young-growth 

Harvest on High 

Vulnerability Karst

No entry Commercial

Thinning only

Commercial

Thinning only

Commercial

Thinning only No entry

Beach and Estuary 

Fringe Buffer

Maintain 1,000-ft 

protected corridor 

inland of even-age 

harvest units

Maintain a 200-ft no-cut 

buffer adjacent to 

shoreline

Young-growth 

Legacy

For young-growth 

harvest units >20 ac 

leave 30% as legacy

For young-growth 

harvest units >20 ac 

leave 30% as legacy

CMAI

Flexible for first

50,000 acres of 

young-growth 

harvest

Flexible for life of 

plan

Flexible for life of 

plan

Flexible for life of 

plan Flexible for life of plan

Scenery Standards

for Young-Growth 2008 Forest Plan SIOs relaxed to Very Low

SIOs relaxed by one 

level from 2008 

Forest Plan

2008 Forest Plan

SIOs relaxed to Very Low 

for YG in Development

LUDs only

Scenery Standards 

for Renewable 

Energy

2008 Forest Plan 

(SIOs = Low for 

hydro)

SIOs relaxed to Very 

Low

SIOs = Low for all 

renewable energy 

projects

SIOs = Low for all 

renewable energy 

projects

SIOs = Low for all 

renewable energy 

projects

LUD Change No change Old-growth Habitat 

LUD modified

Old-growth Habitat 

LUD modified

Old -growth Habitat 

LUD modified

Old-growth Habitat LUD

modified

Estimated Time to 

Full Transition 32 years 12 years 13 years 16 years 16 years

Renewable Energy 

Development No change

New management 

direction that is 

more permissive

New management 

direction that is 

more permissive

New management 

direction that is 

more permissive

New management 

direction that is more 

permissive

Other No change New plan direction New plan direction New plan direction New plan direction

YG = Young Growth, OG = Old Growth, CMAI = culmination of mean annual increment

1 Under the 2008 Forest Plan, the scheduled timber sale program was generally confined to Phase 1 until such time as the level of 

timber harvest reached at least 100 MMBF for two consecutive years. 2 Timber harvest is currently inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Proposed timber harvest in IRAs could not occur until the Roadless 

Rule is changed as a result of new rulemaking, or the 2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 75136) is reinstated.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-45 Alternatives

Table 2-18

Comparison of Alternatives 

Resource/Category Unit of Measure

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Key Issue 1 – Young-Growth Transition

Land suitable for timber production Acres of OG

Acres of YG

328,615

263,904

349,380

374,714

516,566

349,872

269,135

263,710

229,060

338,973

Harvest after 25 years Acres of OG

Acres of YG

38,527

9,669

15,027

63,787

16,599

53,734

23,255

40,760

23,813

43,316

Harvest after 100 years Acres of OG

Acres of YG

62,851

209,882

32,609

335,344

35,568

313,216

42,597

234,885

42,479

284,144

Approximate Years to full transition 

(YG harvest = 41 MMBF)

years 32 12 13 16 16

Total discounted net revenue after 15 years $ millions $64 $12 $21 $48 $46

Total discounted net revenue after 25 years $ millions $101 ($20) ($3) $41 $42

Total discounted net revenue after 100 years $ millions $205 $24 $37 $84 $81

Number of annualized direct jobs supported

(first decade)

# jobs 184-217 196-231 194-229 187-220 187-221

Key Issue 2 Renewable Energy

More permissive in siting Renewable Energy projects Yes/No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Key Issue 3 – Roadless Areas1

Projected harvest in inventoried roadless areas after 

100 years

Acres of OG

Acres of YG

0

0

2,171

9,104

17,037

11,809

0

0

0

0

Roadless characteristics protected Qualitative degree of 

protection

Most Second most Least Most Most

Key Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy

Percent of existing POG harvested after 100 years Percent POG 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8

Percent of original POG remaining after 100 years 

(92% in 2015)

Percent POG 90 91 91 91 91

Percent of original high volume POG remaining after 

100 years (84% in 2015)

Percent POG 85 85 85 85 85

Percent of original large-tree POG remaining after 100 

years (82% in 2015)

Percent POG 78 79 79 79 79

YG Harvest in Beach and Estuary Fringe after 100 

years (all prescriptions)

Acres of YG 0 21,871 30,769 11,114 3,903

YG Harvest in Riparian Management Areas after 100 

years (all prescriptions)

Acres of YG 0 26,030 0 0 1,089
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-46 Final EIS

Table 2-18 (continued)

Comparison of Alternatives

Resource/Category Unit of Measure

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

YG Harvest in Old Growth Habitat LUD after 100 years 

(all prescriptions)

Acres 0 31,640 26,186 0 1,811

Average road density on NFS lands after 100 years 

(0.195 miles/square mile in 2016)

Miles/Sq. Mile 0.231 0.235 0.233 0.228 0.232

Average road density on All lands within Tongass 

boundary after 100 years (0.334 mile/sq.mi.in 2016)

Miles/Sq. Mile 0.450 0.454 0.453 0.448 0.452

Average open road density on NFS lands after 100 

years (0.089 miles/square mile in 2016)

Miles/Sq. Mile 0.094 0.095 0.095 0.094 0.094

Average open road density on All lands within Tongass 

boundary after 100 years (0.218 miles/sq. mile in 2016)

Miles/Sq. Mile 0.238 0.239 0.239 0.238 0.239

Percent of WAAs with road density on NFS lands <0.7 

miles/sq. mile (85.3% in 2016)

Percent 82.7 82.7 82.7 83.8 82.8

Percent of WAAs with road density on All lands <0.7 

miles/sq. mile (78.6% in 2016)

Percent 72.3 72.3 72.3 72.8 72.3

Species-Specific Effects

Goshawks – Harvest of high-volume POG forest after 

100 years 

Acres 27,466 14,020 13,716 18,249 17,815

Marten – Harvest of deep snow winter habitat (highvolume POG forest <800 feet elevation) after 100 yearsAcres 16,116 8,120 6,297 9,929 9,844

Wolf – Percent of 191 WAAs with model-generated 

habitat capability of at least 18 deer per square mile 

after 100 years (NFS Lands)

Percent 34 34 34 34 34

Brown Bear and Black Bear – YG harvest in beach and 

estuary fringe and RMAs after 100 years

Acres 0 47,901 30,769 11,114 4,993

Endemic Mammals – Harvest of POG forest after 100 

years

Acres 62,851 32,609 35,568 42,597 42,479

Deer habitat capability on All Lands after 100 years in 

Terms of Percent of Original (1954) Habitat Capability 

(78% currently)

Percent 77 78 78 78 78

YG = Young Growth, OG = Old Growth, POG = Productive Old Growth, WAA= wildlife analysis area

1 Timber harvest is currently inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Proposed timber harvest in IRAs could not occur until the Roadless Rule is changed as a result of new rulemaking, or the 

Tongass Exemption (68 FR 75136) is reinstated.