The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) in the Tongass National Forest

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule
August 28, 2020: Eliminating February 3, 2021 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) in the Anne A. Riddle Tongass National Forest Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are areas of the National Forest System (NFS) (IRAs) are areas of the National Forest System (NFS)
identified administratively by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)identified administratively by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Forest Forest
Anne A. Riddle
Service (FS). IRAs are managed according to regulations, known as Service (FS). IRAs are managed according to regulations, known as roadless rules, that , that
Analyst in Natural
limit timber harvesting, road construction, and road reconstruction within designated limit timber harvesting, road construction, and road reconstruction within designated
Resources Policy
areas. Although IRAs occur in multiple states, this report refers only to IRAs in Alaska

and the FS’s proposed rulemaking for Alaska roadless area management.

areas. IRA management in Alaska IRA management in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest has generated particular controversy. has generated particular controversy. Alaska containsThe Tongass is the the
nation’s nation’s two largest national forests, the Tongass and the Chugach. Approximately 14.8 mil ion acres of NFS
lands in Alaska are designated IRAs; they cover almost 67% of the state’s NFS acres. Alaska national forests can
belargest national forest and is a regional y significant regional y significant settingssetting for economic sectors such as forestry, for economic sectors such as forestry, commercial fishing, and tourism. commercial fishing, and tourism. Alaska’s
national forestsIt is also also area unique ecological unique ecological resourcesresource, containing large, undeveloped tracts of rare ecosystems, , containing large, undeveloped tracts of rare ecosystems,
such as temperate rainforest. Thus, the such as temperate rainforest. Thus, the scale of the proposed rule, and its potential impacts to NFS lands and impacts to NFS lands and
resources and to adjacent resources and to adjacent communities, has generated communities from Tongass roadless area management has generated congressional interest. interest.
In January 2018, the State of Alaska requested that the USDA consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt In January 2018, the State of Alaska requested that the USDA consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt
the Tongass the Tongass National Forest from the currently from the then-applicable roadless rule, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule applicable roadless rule, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule
((hereinafter, the 2001 Rule). The FS agreed to undertake this rulemaking and published the 2001 Rule). The FS agreed to undertake this rulemaking and published the proposed rule and draft environmental
impact statement (DEIS) on October 17, 2019. The FS’s proposed final rule, final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in October 2020. The FS’s rule specifies that the 2001 Rule shal not apply rule specifies that the 2001 Rule shal not apply
to the Tongass National Forest. As such, the to the Tongass National Forest. As such, the proposed rule would removerule removed al 9. al 9.23 mil ion IRA acres in the mil ion IRA acres in the Tongass Tongass
from roadless designationfrom roadless designation, and the 2001 Rule’s prohibitions on timber harvesting, road construction, and and the 2001 Rule’s prohibitions on timber harvesting, road construction, and
reconstruction reconstruction would no longer apply to the forest. In addition, the proposed rule would establish an
administrative process al owing the Alaska Regional Forester to issue boundary corrections and modifications for
IRAs designated by the 2001 Rule in the Chugach National Forest.
no longer apply to the forest. The practical impact of the The practical impact of the proposed rule’s provisions is difficult to predict, due to various factors. Timber rule’s provisions is difficult to predict, due to various factors. Timber
harvesting (and harvesting (and associated road works) in national forests is influenced by national and global timber market associated road works) in national forests is influenced by national and global timber market
conditions. Timber harvesting in the Tongass is additional y influenced by unique legalconditions. Timber harvesting in the Tongass is additional y influenced by unique legal and management factors, and management factors,
such as relatively long transportation distances and high costs, special provisions for timber export, and a planned such as relatively long transportation distances and high costs, special provisions for timber export, and a planned
transition away from traditional timber types. The FS predicts the transition away from traditional timber types. The FS predicts the proposed rule wil have a minimal to moderate
beneficial effect on some local and regional economic activitiesrule wil affect various Tongass uses and values positively (e.g., (e.g., the timberthe forest products industry industry), no impact on
other activities (e.g., the fisheries industry), and a minimal adverse effect on the visitor industry. The FS predicts
, regional transportation development), negatively (e.g., tourism, overal roadless area characteristics), or not at al (e.g., commercial fisheries). The FS expects effects on ecosystems and wildlife general yeffects on ecosystems and wildlife general y wil be similar to predicted effects under current management. The FS predicts that the economic impacts of the exemption could range between a net present value of approximately $2.5 to $3.5 mil ion, to approximately -$27.8 to -$29.3 mil ion. Debates surrounding the rule have generated interest on a national scale andwil be similar to predicted effects under current management.
Stakeholders have expressed a variety of views on the proposed rule’s possible impacts. Some have expressed
concern that the proposed rule may have significant negative effects (e.g., to the visitor and fishing industries or to
ecosystems and wildlife), possibly without creating beneficial impacts (e.g., to the timber industry). Others expect
significant benefits to the timber industry and other sectors. The FS’s predicted impacts appear sensitive to
changes in assumptions regarding timber markets and other factors.
Debates surrounding the proposed Alaska Roadless Rule have generated interest on a national scale. Debates
surrounding the proposed rule often center on the potential impacts often center on the potential impacts to communities and resources. Concerns also have been raised about the FS’s management of the rulemaking process. In particular, stakeholders have questionedto communities and resources, either due to
the proposed rule itself or due to potential differences between the proposed rule and the 2001 Rule. Concerns
also have been raised about the State of Alaska’s use of federal funds during the rulemaking process the State of Alaska’s use of federal funds during the rulemaking process and the FS’s treatment of Alaska Native tribal governments’ input. Congress . Congress
has engaged with has engaged with both issues through oversight actions.both issues through oversight actions.


Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 1211 link to page 11 link to page link to page 1413 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 1819 link to page link to page 1920 link to page link to page 1921 link to page link to page 1922 link to page link to page 2022 link to page link to page 522 link to page 5 link to page link to page 5 link to page 2023 The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
National Forests in Alaska ................................................................................................ 2
The Tongass National Forest in Context ........................................................................ 3
Special Considerations for Tongass Roads and Timber .................................................... 4
History of Roadless Area Management in Alaska ................................................................. 5
The Roadless Rule ..................................................................................................... 6
Alaska and the Roadless Rule ...................................................................................... 78
The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule................................................................................... 8
The Proposed Rule ....................................Final Alaska Roadless Rule: The Tongass Roadless Exemption ...................................................................... 9 8
Timber Harvesting ..................................................................................................... 9 10
Road Construction and Reconstruction........................................................................ 1112
Overal Impacts of the Proposed Rule ............................Exemption ............................................. 12
Potential Impacts to the Chugach from the Proposed Rule.............................................. 13
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 14
Impacts to Lands, Resources, and Communities: Stakeholder Views................................ 14
Concerns Regarding the Forest Service’sUses of Federal Funding During the Rulemaking Process .......................................... 15
Options for Congress.... 16 Tribal Consultation ..................................................................................................... 16
Oversight 17 Options for Congress ..................................................................................................... 18 Oversight ..................... 16
Respond to Newly Issued Forest Service Roadless Regulations ...................................... 16
Legislative Action.............................................................. 19 Respond to Newly Issued Forest Service Roadless Regulations ...................................... 17

Figures
Figure 1. National Forest System (NFS) and Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) Lands in
Alaska .......................19 Legislative Action Regarding Tongass Roadless Area Designation and Management.......... 19 Figures Figure 1. The Tongass National Forest................................................................................................. 2

2 Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 1720

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

---

link to page 5 link to page 5 The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest

Introduction
Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are areas of the National Forest System (NFS) identified (IRAs) are areas of the National Forest System (NFS) identified
administratively by the Forest Service (FS) and managed according to regulations, known as administratively by the Forest Service (FS) and managed according to regulations, known as
roadless rulesroadless rules, that limit timber harvesting, road construction, and road reconstruction., that limit timber harvesting, road construction, and road reconstruction.1 For For
decades, the FS has inventoried and designated general y undeveloped areas of the NFS (under decades, the FS has inventoried and designated general y undeveloped areas of the NFS (under
various names) and has managed these areas to preserve their undeveloped qualities. various names) and has managed these areas to preserve their undeveloped qualities. In 2001, the In 2001, the
FS issued the first roadless ruleFS issued the first roadless rule and, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (hereinafter, the 2001 Rule), which defined the modern-day IRAs defined the modern-day IRAs, setting the and set a nationwide framework for framework for
modern FS roadless area policy. modern FS roadless area policy. It remains in effect for most national forests (see “History of Roadless Area Management in Alaska”). In 2018, the FS began work on a state-specific rulemaking for In 2018, the FS began work on a state-specific rulemaking for
Alaska IRAsIRAs in Alaska’s National Forests, the Tongass and the Chugach, spurring interest in how such a rulemaking may affect associated NFS lands and , spurring interest in how such a rulemaking may affect associated NFS lands and
resources.
IRA management in Alaska, including the proposed rulemaking, has generated particular
controversy. Alaska contains the two largest national forests, the Tongass and the Chugach, which
comprise approximately 22.1 mil ion acres of land (over 34,000 square miles; see Figure 1).1
IRAs in Alaska are approximately 14.8 mil ion acres in extent and comprise almost 67% of NFS
land in Alaska.2 National forests in Alaska are resources. On October 29, 2020, the FS issued the final rulemaking, which removes the 2001 Rule’s applicability to Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, thereby eliminating the designation of IRAs in the Tongass and the associated prohibitions on timber harvesting, road construction, and road reconstruction. IRA management in Alaska, including the rulemaking, has generated particular controversy. At approximately 16.7 mil ion acres (more than 26,000 square miles), the Tongass is the nation’s largest national forest (see Figure 1).2 It contained approximately 9.3 mil ion acres of IRAs, or approximately 56% of its area and approximately 16% of nationwide IRA acres.3 The Tongass is significant for local communities and the overal significant for local communities and the overal
regional economy. regional economy. Alaska’s national forests also areThe Tongass also is a unique ecological unique ecological resourcesresource, because because they
containit contains large, undeveloped tracts of rare ecosystems, such as temperate rainforest. Thus, the scale large, undeveloped tracts of rare ecosystems, such as temperate rainforest. Thus, the scale
of the of the proposed rule, and its potential impacts to rule, and its potential impacts to NFSTongass lands and lands and resources and to adjacent resources and to adjacent
communities, has generated stakeholder interest. communities, has generated stakeholder interest.

1 1 Congressional Research Service (CRS) calculation from U.S. state land area data, Sonja Oswalt et al., Forest
Resources of the United States, 2017: A Technical Docum ent Supporting the Forest Service 2020 Update of the RPA
Assessm ent, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS), 2017 (hereinafter cited as Oswalt et al.,
Forest Resources); and USDA, FS, “ For more information on inventoried roadless areas and roadless rules, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. 2 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS), “National Forest System Land Area” in National Forest System Land Area” in Land Areas Report (LAR), 2019., 2019.
2 3 CRS calculation from inventoried roadless area (IRA) data, FS Legislative Affairs Office, March 20, 2020; U.S. state CRS calculation from inventoried roadless area (IRA) data, FS Legislative Affairs Office, March 20, 2020; U.S. state
land area data, Oswalt et al., land area data, Oswalt et al., Forest Resources; and USDA, FS, “ National Forest System Land Area” in ; and USDA, FS, “ National Forest System Land Area” in Land Areas
Report (LAR), 2019. , 2019.
Note that other sources may report different acreages of T ongass IRAs; for example, the FS reported T ongass IRAs to be both 9.3 million and 9.4 million acres in extent in the explanatory material accompanying the final rulemaking. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1 1

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

Figure 1. National Forest System (NFS) and Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)
Lands in Alaska

SourceAlaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest Figure 1. The Tongass National Forest Sources: Congressional Research Service, from Forest ServiceCongressional Research Service, from Forest Service (FS), FS Geodata Clearinghouse,(FS), FS Geodata Clearinghouse, “Roadless Areas:“Roadless Areas:
2001, Idaho, and Colorado Rules Combined,” and U.S. Geological Survey, Protected Areas Database of the 2001, Idaho, and Colorado Rules Combined,” and U.S. Geological Survey, Protected Areas Database of the
United States. United States.
Congress has Congress has considered previously and continues to considershown continuing concern about policy for roadless area policy for roadless area
management, including roadless area management specific to Alaska, through legislative and management, including roadless area management specific to Alaska, through legislative and
oversight activities. Congressional interest in oversight activities. Congressional interest in the proposed Alaska Roadless RuleAlaska roadless area management also has also has
generated policy proposals generated policy proposals applicable to FS roadless areas nationwide. applicable to FS roadless areas nationwide.
This report provides an overview of the FS’s This report provides an overview of the FS’s proposed rule and contextual information regarding rule and contextual information regarding
the affected NFS lands and resources. The report provides information on the national forests in the affected NFS lands and resources. The report provides information on the national forests in
Alaska, particularly the Tongass National Forest, which Alaska, particularly the Tongass National Forest, which has beenis the focus of the focus of both the proposed
the final rule and associated stakeholder attention. The report also describes the rule and associated stakeholder attention. The report also describes the proposed rule’s contents rule’s contents
and its potential impacts. The report concludes with a discussion of issues for potential and its potential impacts. The report concludes with a discussion of issues for potential
congressional congressional consideration related to the consideration related to the proposed rule and the FS’s rulemaking process.rule and the FS’s rulemaking process.
National Forests in Alaska
TwoOf the two national forests national forests are in Alaska, the Tongass and the Chugach National Forests. The Tongass,
the largest national forest, is approximately 16.7 mil ion acres (more than 26,000 square miles) in
extent, of which approximately 9.2 mil ion acres (55%) are designated IRAs.3 The Chugach is
approximately 5.4 mil ion acres in extent, of which approximately 99% are designated IRAs.4

3 CRS calculation from IRA data, FS Legislative Affairs Officein Alaska, the Chugach is the less developed, with limited access to much of the forest. About 99% of its approximately 5.4 mil ion acres are designated as IRAs, and its major resources and uses are fish, wildlife, and recreation.4 The Tongass, the largest national forest, had about 9.3 mil ion acres (56%) of its approximately 16.7 mil ion acres designated as 4 CRS calculation from IRA data, FS legislative affairs office, March 20, 2020; and USDA, FS, “National Forest , March 20, 2020; and USDA, FS, “National Forest
System Land Area” in System Land Area” in Land Areas Report (LAR), 2019, 2019. For further information, see FS, “Alaska Roadless Rule,” at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/roadmain/roadless/alaskaroadlessrule.
4 CRS calculation from IRA data, FS legislative affairs office, March 20, 2020; and USDA, FS, “National Forest
System Land Area” in Land Areas Report (LAR), 2019.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

link to page 12 The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

There is little developed access to much of the Chugach, and its major resources and uses are fish,
wildlife, and recreation.5 The Tongass is an important setting for tourism and commercial
fisheries and a major historical source of timber for Alaska’s forestry industry; USDA, FS, “T he Setting and Planning Background: Chugach National Forest,” May 14, 2002, at https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENT S/stelprdb5334507.pdf. Congressional Research Service 2 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest IRAs.5 The Tongass is an important setting for regional y significant tourism, seafood, and resource extraction industries (e.g., timber harvesting).6 Therefore, .6 Therefore,
controversy regarding IRAs in Alaska has focused on the Tongasscontroversy regarding IRAs in Alaska has focused on the Tongass; for. For example, the proposed Alaska roadless rule was focused largely on the Tongass example, the FS’s
proposed rule (see “The Proposed Rule”) is largely focused on the Tongass National Forest, with , with
minor provisions related to the Chugachminor provisions related to the Chugach. This report provides additional background and context
on the Tongass’s lands and resources.
, and the final rule eliminated provisions related to the Chugach altogether. The Tongass National Forest in Context
The Tongass National Forest covers approximately 80% of the Southeast Alaska Panhandle’s land The Tongass National Forest covers approximately 80% of the Southeast Alaska Panhandle’s land
area.7 It is a regional y significant setting for area.7 It is a regional y significant setting for resource-based economic sectors such as forestry, commercial economic sectors such as forestry, commercial
fishing, and tourism. The Tongass also contains rare wildlife habitats, ecosystems, and visual fishing, and tourism. The Tongass also contains rare wildlife habitats, ecosystems, and visual
characteristics of national and international significance.8 These factors shape the characteristics of national and international significance.8 These factors shape the debate
debate surrounding the roadless rule’s impacts on the Tongass. surrounding the roadless rule’s impacts on the Tongass.
Because it dominates the region’s land area, the Tongass is a regional y important setting for a
number of resource-based industries, includingIn 2018, more than 29% of total employment in southeast Alaska was in forestry, commercial fishing, tourism, and mining forestry, commercial fishing, tourism, and mining
and mineral development. In 2017, more than 28% of total employment in southeast Alaska was
in these four resource-related industriesand mineral development, with the visitor and seafood industries accounting for , with the visitor and seafood industries accounting for
90% of this figure.9 In addition, the Tongass is often the setting for regional transportation, 90% of this figure.9 In addition, the Tongass is often the setting for regional transportation,
communications, and other infrastructure.10 Regional residents frequently depend communications, and other infrastructure.10 Regional residents frequently depend on the Tongass on the Tongass
for subsistence for subsistence (such as hunting and fishinghunting and fishing), cultural and sacred sites, and other , cultural and sacred sites, and other uses.uses.
The Tongass is also a unique ecological resource. The forests of southeast Alaska, including the The Tongass is also a unique ecological resource. The forests of southeast Alaska, including the
Tongass, comprise approximately 19% of the world’s temperate rain forest.11 Tongass, comprise approximately 19% of the world’s temperate rain forest.11 In addition, the
Tongass is unique within the NFS in regard to the substantial amount of old-growth forest (see
text box on “Tongass Timber and the Young-Growth Transition,” below) present outside of
designated wilderness.12 The Tongass’s large tracts of intact ecosystems help to preserve the The Tongass’s large tracts of intact ecosystems help to preserve the
region’s biodiversity, including habitat for over 300 species of birds and mammals, many of region’s biodiversity, including habitat for over 300 species of birds and mammals, many of
which are found only in that region.which are found only in that region.1312 In addition, In addition, southeast Alaska forests sequesterthe Tongass sequesters large large
quantities of carbon and quantities of carbon and playplays other important roles in the global carbon other important roles in the global carbon cycle.cycle.1413

5 5 USDA, FS, “T he Setting and Planning Background: Chugach National Forest,” May 14, 2002, at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENT S/stelprdb5334507.pdf.
6 USDA, FS, DraftCRS calculation from IRA data, FS Legislative Affairs Office, March 20, 2020; and USDA, FS, “National Forest System Land Area” in Land Areas Report (LAR), 2019. For further information, see FS, “Alaska Roadless Rule,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/roadmain/roadless/alaskaroadlessrule. 6 USDA, FS, Final Environmental Impact Statement: Rulemaking for Alaska Roadless Areas, R10-MB-, R10-MB-867a, October
2019, pp. 2-21867b, September 2020, pp. ES-3. Hereinafter cited as . Hereinafter cited as DEIS 2019FEIS 2020.
7 FS, “About the Alaska Region,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r10/about-region. 7 FS, “About the Alaska Region,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r10/about-region.
8 8 DEIS 2019FEIS 2020, “Background,” “Key Issue 1-Roadless Area Conservation,” and others.“Background,” “Key Issue 1-Roadless Area Conservation,” and others.
9 DEIS 2019 9 FEIS 2020, T able 3.2-1. T he visitor industry accounts for approximately , T able 3.2-1. T he visitor industry accounts for approximately 6062% of resource-based employment, % of resource-based employment,
followed by seafood (followed by seafood (3028%), mining and mineral development (7%), and %), mining and mineral development (7%), and forestry (3%).timber (3%). T he visitor industry represents 18% of total employment, followed by seafood (8%), mining and mineral development (2%) and timber (1%). FEIS 2020, T able 3.2-1.
10 Because of the region’s island geography, residents primarily use air and water transportation to travel between 10 Because of the region’s island geography, residents primarily use air and water transportation to travel between
communities, although state and local roads may cross National Forest System (NFS) lands. Most of the NFS road communities, although state and local roads may cross National Forest System (NFS) lands. Most of the NFS road
network is for timber harvesting and does not connect communitiesnetwork is for timber harvesting and does not connect communities. DEIS 2019, p. 3-141 except in one region, Prince of Wales Island. FEIS 2020, p. 3-163. .
11 Jane Wolken et al., “Evidence and Implications of Recent and Projected Climate Change in Alaska’s Forest 11 Jane Wolken et al., “Evidence and Implications of Recent and Projected Climate Change in Alaska’s Forest
Ecosystems,” Ecosystems,” Ecosphere, vol. 2, no. 11 (2011), pp.1-35. T his forest type is also referred to as , vol. 2, no. 11 (2011), pp.1-35. T his forest type is also referred to as coastal temperate and and
covers less than 0.5% of the Earth’s land area.covers less than 0.5% of the Earth’s land area.
12 DEIS 2019, 3-20.
1312 FS, FS, Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement, R10-MB-603a , R10-MB-603a
(Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 3-9. (Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 3-9.
14 DEIS 2019 13 FEIS 2020, “Climate and Carbon,” and Heather Keith, Brendan Mackey, and David“Climate and Carbon,” and Heather Keith, Brendan Mackey, and David Lindenmeyer, “ReLindenmeyer, “Re -evaluation of
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

Special Considerations for Tongass Roads and Timber
The roadless rule places-evaluation of Forest Biomass Carbon Stocks and Lessons from the World’s Most Carbon -Dense Forests,” Proceedings of the National Academ y of Sciences, vol. 106, no. 28 (July 14, 2009), pp. 11635-11640. For additional information on forest carbon, see CRS Report R46312, Forest Carbon Prim er, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle and CRS Report Congressional Research Service 3 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest Special Considerations for Tongass Roads and Timber Prior to the October 2020 rulemaking, the roadless rule applicable to the NFS (the 2001 Rule) placed restrictions on timber harvesting, road construction, and road restrictions on timber harvesting, road construction, and road
reconstruction in reconstruction in specified areas. IRAs. These issues are intertwined: the TongassThese issues are intertwined: the Tongass is an important source
of timber for the region, and the Tongass’s road transportation system is mostly in support of ’s road transportation system is mostly in support of
timber harvesting.timber harvesting.1514 Thus, debate surrounding the roadless rule in Alaska often has centered on Thus, debate surrounding the roadless rule in Alaska often has centered on
timber activities in the Tongass. timber activities in the Tongass.
Tongass Timber and the Young-Growth Transition
In the past decades, management of the Tongass National Forest has been shaped by shifting policies relating to In the past decades, management of the Tongass National Forest has been shaped by shifting policies relating to
two classifications of forests, old growth and young growth: two classifications of forests, old growth and young growth:
 
Old growth: The-growth forest: Usual y, the final stage of forest development. final stage of forest development. Old growth can be defined many ways, often related to can be defined many ways, often related to
forest characteristics forest characteristics (such as tree size,such as tree size, age, and number; canopy conditions; dead and down trees; debris; age, and number; canopy conditions; dead and down trees; debris;
and othersand others).
 
Young growth-growth forest: A relatively young forestA relatively young forest that has regeneratedthat has regenerated after a majorafter a major disturbance, such as wildfire or disturbance, such as wildfire or
extensive timber harvesting. In the Tongass, forestsextensive timber harvesting. In the Tongass, forests younger than 150 years in age are consideredyounger than 150 years in age are considered young
growth. .
Historical y, most timber harvesting in the Tongass has been of old-growth timber. However, old-growth Historical y, most timber harvesting in the Tongass has been of old-growth timber. However, old-growth timberforest is is
associated with many of the Tongass’s unique qualities, such as habitat for sensitive associated with many of the Tongass’s unique qualities, such as habitat for sensitive wildlife or endemic species, and harvesting species, and harvesting
old-growth timber is increasinglyold-growth timber is increasingly controversial. controversial.
In 2010, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) announced the Tongass Transition Framework, a framework for In 2010, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) announced the Tongass Transition Framework, a framework for
directing greater support from the Forest Service (FS) and other U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies to non-directing greater support from the Forest Service (FS) and other U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies to non-
timber industries deemed to be of importance to the Tongass region’s economy, such as recreation and fisheries. timber industries deemed to be of importance to the Tongass region’s economy, such as recreation and fisheries.
In 2013, the Secretary further directedIn 2013, the Secretary further directed the FS to shift away from harvests of old-growth timber and toward the FS to shift away from harvests of old-growth timber and toward
harvest of young-growth timber over a period of 10 to 15 years. The FS specified that the plan was intended to harvest of young-growth timber over a period of 10 to 15 years. The FS specified that the plan was intended to
conserve the Tongass’s “exceptional natural resources” while providing economic opportunities for local conserve the Tongass’s “exceptional natural resources” while providing economic opportunities for local
communities. In 2016, the FS revised the Tongass’s land and resource management plan to reflect this planned communities. In 2016, the FS revised the Tongass’s land and resource management plan to reflect this planned
shift. shift.
According to the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Alaska Roadless Rule, Under the 2016 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, the FS plans for the FS plans for
the old-growth proportion of planned timber sales to be high initial y and to decrease over time as young-growth the old-growth proportion of planned timber sales to be high initial y and to decrease over time as young-growth
timber becomes more timber becomes more economical y viable. The phased reduction in old-growth timber sales in the plan is economical y viable. The phased reduction in old-growth timber sales in the plan is
intended to al ow for regional timber industry adaptation over time. intended to al ow for regional timber industry adaptation over time.
Sources: USDA, FS, USDA, FS, DraftFinal Environmental Impact Statement: Rulemaking for Alaska Roadless Areas,, R10-MB-R10-MB-867a,
October 2019867b, September 2020; Letter from; Letter from Thomas Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, to the Tongass Futures Roundable, Thomas Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, to the Tongass Futures Roundable,
May 24, 2010; USDA, Office of the Secretary, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska,May 24, 2010; USDA, Office of the Secretary, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska,
Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, 2013; USDA, FS, Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, 2013; USDA, FS, Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management
Management Plan, R10-MB-769j, DecemberR10-MB-769j, December 2016; USDA, FS, 2016; USDA, FS, Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement, R10-MB-769e,f, December 2016. , R10-MB-769e,f, December 2016.
Timber harvesting activity in the Tongass, as in the NFS general y, Timber harvesting activity in the Tongass, as in the NFS general y, and timber industry
employment in southeast Alaska havehas declined from declined from theirits peak peak levels levels in the 1970s and 1980s.in the 1970s and 1980s.16
From 2002 to 2017, the15 Timber industry employment in southeast Alaska also has been declining since its peak in 1982.16 The FS estimates the number of timber jobs directly supported FS estimates the number of timber jobs directly supported by the Tongass fel from 199 in 2003 to 62 in 2018.17 During this period, total Tongass-related by the Tongass

Forest Biomass Carbon Stocks and Lessons from the World’s Most Carbon -Dense Forests,” Proceedings of the
National Academ y of Sciences, vol. 106, no. 28 (July 14, 2009), pp. 11635-11640. For additional information on forest
carbon, see CRS Report R46312, Forest Carbon Prim er, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle and CRS Report
R46313, R46313, U.S. Forest Carbon Data: In Brief, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle. , by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle.
15 DEIS 2019 14 FEIS 2020, p. 3-, p. 3-113.
16163. 15 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Tongass National Forest: Forest Service’s Actions Related to its
Planned Tim ber Transition, GAO-16-456, April 2016, hereinafter cited as GAO,, GAO-16-456, April 2016, hereinafter cited as GAO, Tongass National Forest, and DEIS
2019, p. 3-28. According to GAO,. According to GAO, timber harvests from the T ongass peaked at an annual average of approximately 494 timber harvests from the T ongass peaked at an annual average of approximately 494
million boardmillion board feet in the 1970s and general southeast Alaska timber industry employment peaked at approximately
2,500 jobs in 1982.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

varied but declined overal .17 During this period, total Tongass-related feet in the 1970s. For more information on the history of NFS timber harvesting, see CRS Report R45688, Tim ber Harvesting on Federal Lands, by Anne A. Riddle. 16 GAO, Tongass National Forest. T here were approximately 2,500 timber industry jobs in southeast Alaska in 198 2. 17 FEIS 2020, p. 3-34, T able 3.2-2. T he FS estimates that total timber industry employment in southeast Alaska Congressional Research Service 4 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest timber harvest activities timber harvest activities
supported about supported about 4142% of total timber industry employment in southeast Alaska, on average.18 In % of total timber industry employment in southeast Alaska, on average.18 In
2017FY2018, approximately 19.9 mil ion, approximately 19.9 mil ion board feet board feet of timber were harvested.19(MMBF) of timber was harvested from the Tongass.19 Tongass timber sale levels for the last three years have averaged 15 MMBF per year, or about one-third of the quantity of timber expected to be sold.20 General y, General y, most timber most timber
harvested in southeast Alaska is sent to other states and exported international y.harvested in southeast Alaska is sent to other states and exported international y.2021
Several legal and policy considerations shape timber harvesting in the Tongass. Several legal and policy considerations shape timber harvesting in the Tongass. The FS must seek to meet market demand for timber from the Tongass, both annual y and for each forest planning cycle.22 By law, the FS By law, the FS
cannot offer timber for sale unless the sale is positively appraised cannot offer timber for sale unless the sale is positively appraised (sometimes referred to as (sometimes referred to as
appraising positive)—that is, the estimated value of the timber exceeds the cost of conducting the )—that is, the estimated value of the timber exceeds the cost of conducting the
harvest.harvest.2123 A number of factors specific to the Tongass—for example, the long distances and high A number of factors specific to the Tongass—for example, the long distances and high
costs associated with transportation in the region, the low value of young-growth timber, and costs associated with transportation in the region, the low value of young-growth timber, and
others—affect whether sales appraise positive and can be offered.others—affect whether sales appraise positive and can be offered.22 24 Although internationalAlthough international and and
interstate export of interstate export of unprocessed timber from Alaska NFS lands timber from Alaska NFS lands is al owed only under certain circumstances, a
requires approval by the FS, a policy al owingpolicy al owing specified interstate and internationalspecified interstate and international exports is in exports is in place for timber harvested from place for timber harvested from
the Tongass, which affects the number of positively appraised sales.the Tongass, which affects the number of positively appraised sales.2325 In 2018, 46% of the timber harvested from the Tongass was exported, with approximately 44% exported international y.26
History of Roadless Area Management in AlaskaAlaska27
The history of roadless areas in Alaska is intertwined with the FS’s nationwide policies for The history of roadless areas in Alaska is intertwined with the FS’s nationwide policies for
roadless area management. The FS has sought to identify NFS lands with undeveloped roadless area management. The FS has sought to identify NFS lands with undeveloped
conditions, and provide for special management of those lands, since early in its history. The FS
designated and managed undeveloped areas to preserve their character—for example, through
prohibiting road construction, motorized use, timber harvesting, and other actions—through
regulations from the 1920s through 1964.24 In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act,

17 In DEIS 2019, p. 3-28, the FS estimates that total T ongass-related timber employment declined from 173 jobs in
2002 to 24 jobs in 2017, with a “recent high” of 199 jobs in 2003. T otal timber industry employment in southeast
Alaska declined from 512 jobs in 2002 to 202 jobs in 2017, with a “recent high” of 562 jobs in 2003. Other FS sources
declined from 561 jobs in 2003 to 193 jobs in 2018. Other FS sources may estimate jobs related to the T ongass timber industry differently. For example, in FS, may estimate jobs related to the T ongass timber industry differently. For example, in FS, Jobs and Incom e: Economic
Contributions at a Glance in 2016, Tongass National Forest, the FS estimates the T ongass “ forest products” industry , the FS estimates the T ongass “ forest products” industry
directly supported 320 timber jobsdirectly supported 320 timber jobs in 2016, compared with total T ongass-related timber employment of 151 jobs in in 2016, compared with total T ongass-related timber employment of 151 jobs in
DEIS 2019FEIS 2020. T his source does T his source does not estimate employment over time. It is unclear whether these sourcesnot estimate employment over time. It is unclear whether these sources measure measure
equivalent employment categories. equivalent employment categories.
18 CRS, from 18 CRS, from DEIS 2019FEIS 2020, p. 3-, p. 3-2834. 19 Forest Service, “Cut and Sold Reports,” Region 10, FY2018 4 th Quarter cumulative report, September 2019. 20 FEIS 2020, p. H-29. 21.
19 DEIS 2019, p. 3-28, and GAO, Tongass National Forest.
20 Jean Daniels, Michael Paruszkiewicz, and Susan Alexander, Jean Daniels, Michael Paruszkiewicz, and Susan Alexander, Tongass National Forest Timber Demand: Projections
for 2015 to 2030, FS, PNW-GT R-934, 2016, hereinafter cited as Daniels, Paruszkiewicz, and , FS, PNW-GT R-934, 2016, hereinafter cited as Daniels, Paruszkiewicz, and AlexanderAlexan der, , Tim ber
Dem and. In the context of the T ongass, . In the context of the T ongass, export can refer to shipping to other areas of the United States or can refer to shipping to other areas of the United States or
internationally. internationally.
2122 P.L. 101-626. 23 P.L. 116- P.L. 116-6 §41094 §436. T he requirement to offer positively appraised sales is generally specified in annual Interior . T he requirement to offer positively appraised sales is generally specified in annual Interior
appropriations bills. appropriations bills.
2224 Daniels, Paruszkiewicz, and Alexander, Daniels, Paruszkiewicz, and Alexander, Timber Demand.
233625 36 C.F.R. C.F.R. §223.201 provides that unprocessed timber from national forests in Alaska may not be exported §223.201 provides that unprocessed timber from national forests in Alaska may not be exported
internationally or out of the state of Alaska without prior approval from the Alaska Regional Forester. T he T ongass internationally or out of the state of Alaska without prior approval from the Alaska Regional Forester. T he T ongass
Limited Export Policy establishes a limited program-level approval for interstate and international export of certain Limited Export Policy establishes a limited program-level approval for interstate and international export of certain
unprocessed timber, although approval for other situations also may be sought. For more information, see the summary unprocessed timber, although approval for other situations also may be sought. For more information, see the summary
and history of the T ongass Limited Export Policy at and history of the T ongass Limited Export Policy at Tongass Land and Resource Managem ent Plan Final
Environm ental Im pact Statement, Appendix H, R10-MB-769e,f, 2016. Congress also sometimes addresses T ongass , Appendix H, R10-MB-769e,f, 2016. Congress also sometimes addresses T ongass
timber appraisal and export policies in annual Interior appropriations bills (e.g., P.L. 116-6 §410). Because timber sales timber appraisal and export policies in annual Interior appropriations bills (e.g., P.L. 116-6 §410). Because timber sales
appraised for export use different price structures, the limited export policy may increase the number of timber sales appraised for export use different price structures, the limited export policy may increase the number of timber sales
that appraise positive. that appraise positive.
24 In the 1920s, the FS issued the so-called L regulations, which directed the Chief of the Forest Service to
administratively designate prim itive areas to be managed for “ primitive conditions of environment, transportation,
habitation, and subsistence.” Construction of permanent improvements and occupancy under special-use permits were
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

26 CRS calculation from FEIS 2020, p. 3-39. 27 For more information on the history of inventoried roadless areas, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. Congressional Research Service 5 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest conditions, and provide for special management of those lands, since early in its history. The FS designated and managed undeveloped areas to preserve their character—for example, through prohibiting road construction, motorized use, timber harvesting, and other actions—through regulations from the 1920s through 1964.28 In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, simultaneously designating many FS undeveloped areas as part of the National Wilderness simultaneously designating many FS undeveloped areas as part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System (NWPS) and directing the FS to inventory other undeveloped areas Preservation System (NWPS) and directing the FS to inventory other undeveloped areas throughout the NFS for for
possible NWPS inclusion.possible NWPS inclusion.2529 The FS conducted two inventories of NFS lands (Roadless Area The FS conducted two inventories of NFS lands (Roadless Area
Review and EvaluationReview and Evaluation [RARE] I and II) [RARE] I and II) under this authority, and both inventories were under this authority, and both inventories were
chal enged in court. Legal decisions related to the chal enged in court. Legal decisions related to the inventories constrained FS management actions inventories constrained FS management actions
in the relevant areas.in the relevant areas.26 30 In part due to these issues with the inventories, in the 1980s, Congress In part due to these issues with the inventories, in the 1980s, Congress
simultaneously designated simultaneously designated thousands of RARE I and II acres as wilderness and thousands of RARE I and II acres as wilderness and released
specified that remaining RARE I and II acres remaining RARE I and II acres back into multiple-use management.were to be managed for multiple use.31 Management direction for Management direction for
the remaining RAREthe remaining RARE I and II areas was determined at the national forest level, through individualI and II areas was determined at the national forest level, through individual
FS land and resource FS land and resource management plans (management plans (forest plans).).2732
The Roadless Rule
In late January 2001, the FS returned to administratively designating and managing undeveloped In late January 2001, the FS returned to administratively designating and managing undeveloped
NFS lands at the national level when it issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (NFS lands at the national level when it issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (for the
purposes of this report, the 2001 Rule).28the 2001 Rule).33 The 2001 Rule defined and designated modern IRAs, The 2001 Rule defined and designated modern IRAs,
which were based (in part) on RARE I and II areas not designated as wilderness. The rule which were based (in part) on RARE I and II areas not designated as wilderness. The rule
prohibited timber harvesting, road building, or road maintenance in those IRAs except under
specified conditions.29 When the 2001 Rule was issued, the FS indicated that several issues
warranted a nationwide rule, as opposed to the then-current system of roadless area management
at the forest level:
 Cumulative Impacts of Roads and Timber Harvesting. The FS specified a
number of negative impacts of these activities in issuing the 2001 Rule, such as
fragmentation and degradation of habitat, increased slope instability and
landslides, reduced water quality for wildlife and human uses, and increased
human disturbances in remote areas (such as increased frequency of human-

prohibited timber harvesting, road 28 In the 1920s, the FS issued the so-called L regulations, which directed the Chief of the Forest Service to administratively designate prim itive areas to be managed for “ primitive conditions of environment, transportation, habitation, and subsistence.” Construction of permanent improvements and occupancy under special-use permits were not allowed in these areas. FS, “ Forest Service Policy Covering Preservation of Natural Areas,” Regulation Lnot allowed in these areas. FS, “ Forest Service Policy Covering Preservation of Natural Areas,” Regulation L -20, -20,
National Forest Manual, July 12, 1929, as amended August 7, 1930, and FS, “ Lands,” 1 , July 12, 1929, as amended August 7, 1930, and FS, “ Lands,” 1 Federal Register 1100, August 1100, August
15, 1936. In 1939, the FS issued the so-called 15, 1936. In 1939, the FS issued the so-called U regulations, which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to designate , which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to designate
wilderness and the Chief of the Forest Service to designate and the Chief of the Forest Service to designate wild areas. Roads, motorized transport, commercial timber Roads, motorized transport, commercial timber
harvesting, and occupancy under special use permits were prohibited in both wilderness and wild areas. FS, “ Land harvesting, and occupancy under special use permits were prohibited in both wilderness and wild areas. FS, “ Land
Use,” 4Use,” 4 Federal Register 3994, September 20, 1939. Prior to this, FS district foresters approved or planned the 3994, September 20, 1939. Prior to this, FS district foresters approved or planned the
administrative designation of wilderness areas in district recreation plans in several western states. administrative designation of wilderness areas in district recreation plans in several western states. Denni sDennis Roth, “ Roth, “ T he T he
National Forests and the Campaign for Wilderness Legislation,” National Forests and the Campaign for Wilderness Legislation,” Journal of Forest History, vol. 28, no. 3 (1984). , vol. 28, no. 3 (1984).
2529 P.L. 88-577. P.L. 88-577.
2630 See, for example, Parker v. United States, 448 F.2d 793 ( See, for example, Parker v. United States, 448 F.2d 793 (10 th10th Cir. 1971), California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. Cir. 1971), California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.
1982. For more information on these proceedings, see CRS Report R46504, 1982. For more information on these proceedings, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas
(IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. , by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann.
2731 Pursuant to the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the FS manages the National Forest System to balance multiple uses of its lands and to ensure a sustained yield of those uses in perpetuity. For more information, see CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Managem ent: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Con gress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle. 32 T he National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588) requires the FS to prepare a comprehensive land and T he National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588) requires the FS to prepare a comprehensive land and
resource management plan (resource management plan (forest plan)) for each NFS unit. Forest plans specify desired resource conditions of the unit for each NFS unit. Forest plans specify desired resource conditions of the unit
and inform decisions on how uses of the unit will be balanced, pursuant to any additional statutory authorities or and inform decisions on how uses of the unit will be balanced, pursuant to any additional statutory authorities or
requirements. See also CRS Report R43872, requirements. See also CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Managem ent: Overview, Appropriations, and
Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle. For a summary of management provisions for roadless areas , by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle. For a summary of management provisions for roadless areas
in forest plans prior to the 2001 Rule, see FS, in forest plans prior to the 2001 Rule, see FS, Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environm ental Im pact
Statem ent, November 2000, Volume 1, Ch.3November 2000, Volume 1, Ch.3.
28, hereinafter cited as 2001 Rule FEIS. 33 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” 66 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” 66 Federal Register 3244, January 12, 2001. Hereinafter cited as 3244, January 12, 2001. Hereinafter cited as
2001 Rule. T he 2001 Rule has not been classified to the T he 2001 Rule has not been classified to the Code of Federal Regulations. .
29 For more information, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A.
Riddle and Adam Vann.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

caused fires.)30Congressional Research Service 6 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest building, or road maintenance in those IRAs except under specified conditions.34 When the 2001 Rule was issued, the FS indicated that several issues warranted a nationwide rule, as opposed to the then-current system of roadless area management at the forest level:  Cumulative Impacts of Roads and Timber Harvesting. The FS specified a number of negative impacts of these activities in issuing the 2001 Rule, such as fragmentation and degradation of habitat, increased slope instability and landslides, reduced water quality for wildlife and human uses, and increased human disturbances in remote areas (such as increased frequency of human- caused fires).35 Furthermore, the FS specified that forest-level management of Furthermore, the FS specified that forest-level management of
these issues might increase cumulative loss of roadless area characteristics these issues might increase cumulative loss of roadless area characteristics
nationwide. nationwide.
  Management and Fiscal Constraints Created by the NFS Road Network.
When the 2001 Rule was issued, the NFS road system was over 386,000 miles When the 2001 Rule was issued, the NFS road system was over 386,000 miles
long.long.3136 The FS argued that budget constraints, coupled with the size of the forest The FS argued that budget constraints, coupled with the size of the forest
road system, prevented the agency from managing the road system to required road system, prevented the agency from managing the road system to required
safety and environmental standards.safety and environmental standards.3237 For example, in issuing the 2001 Rule, the For example, in issuing the 2001 Rule, the
FS indicated there was an estimated $8.4 bil ion in deferred maintenance and FS indicated there was an estimated $8.4 bil ion in deferred maintenance and
reconstruction on NFS roads, and the agency sought additional measures to reconstruction on NFS roads, and the agency sought additional measures to
control the transportation share of its budget.control the transportation share of its budget.3338
  Costs of Litigation: The FS asserted that controversy over roadless area : The FS asserted that controversy over roadless area
management had been a major point of conflict in land management, generating management had been a major point of conflict in land management, generating
“costly and time-consuming” litigation.“costly and time-consuming” litigation.3439 The FS specified that issuing a The FS specified that issuing a
nationwide policy would reduce local appeals and litigation about activities nationwide policy would reduce local appeals and litigation about activities
addressed in the rule, which could avoid future costs to the agency.addressed in the rule, which could avoid future costs to the agency.
The Clinton Administration’s issuance of the 2001 Rule prompted more than a decade of conflict, The Clinton Administration’s issuance of the 2001 Rule prompted more than a decade of conflict,
through two primary means: (1) the rule’s revocation and replacement with an alternate rule in through two primary means: (1) the rule’s revocation and replacement with an alternate rule in
2005 by the George W. Bush Administration (2005 by the George W. Bush Administration (2005 Rule) and (2) litigation chal enging both rules. ) and (2) litigation chal enging both rules.
The 2005 Rule al owed state governors to submit petitions for individual rules for IRAs within The 2005 Rule al owed state governors to submit petitions for individual rules for IRAs within
their respective states, substantial y altering the FS’s IRA policy.their respective states, substantial y altering the FS’s IRA policy.3540 Between 2001 and 2011, Between 2001 and 2011,
federal courts enjoined both the 2001 and the 2005 Rules.federal courts enjoined both the 2001 and the 2005 Rules.3641 For a time, it was unclear which rule, For a time, it was unclear which rule,
if any, governed FS management of roadless areas. However, in 2011, the 2001 Rule was returned if any, governed FS management of roadless areas. However, in 2011, the 2001 Rule was returned
to effect.37
Alaska and the Roadless Rule38
As the legal and political conflicts regarding the roadless rules progressed over the decade, the FS
and stakeholders raised questions regarding the management of Alaska’s roadless areas—
specifical y, the application of the roadless rule to the Tongass.

30 34 For more information, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. 35 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”;, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”; 2001 Rule FEIS, “Purpose and Need.” “Purpose and Need.”
3136 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.” “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.”
3237 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.” “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.”
3338 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”; “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”; 2001 Rule FEIS, “Purpose and Need.” “Purpose and Need.”
3439 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”; “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”; 2001 Rule FEIS,, “Purpose and Need.” “Purpose and Need.”
3540 FS, “Special Areas; State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area FS, “Special Areas; State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Managemen tManagement ,” 70,” 70 Federal Register 25654, May 25654, May
13, 2005, hereinafter cited as 13, 2005, hereinafter cited as 2005 Rule. For a discussion of policy differences between the two rules, see CRS Report For a discussion of policy differences between the two rules, see CRS Report
R46504, R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann, or Robert Glicksman, , by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann, or Robert Glicksman,
“T raveling in Opposite Directions: Roadless Area Management Under the Clinton and Bush Administrations,” “T raveling in Opposite Directions: Roadless Area Management Under the Clinton and Bush Administrations,”
Environm ental Law, vol. 34, no. 1143 (2004), pp., vol. 34, no. 1143 (2004), pp. 1143-1208. 1143-1208.
36 41 See, for example, Wyoming v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1197 See, for example, Wyoming v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1197 , 1231 (D. Wyo. 2003); , 1231 (D. Wyo. 2003);
California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 468 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (N.D. Cal. 2006) . For further discussion of California v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 468 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (N.D. Cal. 2006) . For further discussion of
litigation related to the roadless rules, see CRS Report R46504, litigation related to the roadless rules, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by , by
Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann.
37 Before the 2001 Rule was reinstated, the FS issued individual roadless rules for two states, Colorado and Idaho. T he
2001 Rule does not apply to these states.
38 Adam Vann, CRS Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, contributed to this section.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

Congressional Research Service 7 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest to effect in most states (see “Alaska and the Roadless Rule” for a discussion of the 2001 Rule’s applicability to Alaska).42 Alaska and the Roadless Rule43 As the legal and political conflicts regarding the roadless rules progressed over the decade, the FS and stakeholders raised questions regarding the management of Alaska’s roadless areas— specifical y, the application of the roadless rule to the Tongass. Before the 2001 Rule was issued, the FS grappled with how the rule would apply to Alaska. After Before the 2001 Rule was issued, the FS grappled with how the rule would apply to Alaska. After
initial y proposing otherwise, the FS decided the 2001 Rule would apply immediately to Alaska, initial y proposing otherwise, the FS decided the 2001 Rule would apply immediately to Alaska,
with some limited exceptions.with some limited exceptions.3944 However, in 2003, the FS temporarily exempted the Tongass However, in 2003, the FS temporarily exempted the Tongass
from the 2001 Rule pursuant to settlement of a legal dispute with the State of Alaska over the from the 2001 Rule pursuant to settlement of a legal dispute with the State of Alaska over the
validity of the 2001 Rule. validity of the 2001 Rule.4045
After the George W. Bush Administration issued the 2005 Rule, the FS took the position that After the George W. Bush Administration issued the 2005 Rule, the FS took the position that
further Tongass-specific rulemaking was unnecessary and that timber harvesting in IRAs would further Tongass-specific rulemaking was unnecessary and that timber harvesting in IRAs would
be managed in accordance with the forest plan unless changed through a state-specific be managed in accordance with the forest plan unless changed through a state-specific
rulemaking.rulemaking.4146 However, in 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ruled that the However, in 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ruled that the
FS violated the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the 2003 Tongass exemption.FS violated the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the 2003 Tongass exemption.4247 The The
court thus vacated the exemption and reinstated the applicability of the 2001 Rule to the court thus vacated the exemption and reinstated the applicability of the 2001 Rule to the
Tongass.Tongass.4348 After an initial reversal by a three-judge panel, the district court decision was After an initial reversal by a three-judge panel, the district court decision was
ultimately upheld en banc by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2015.ultimately upheld en banc by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2015.44 Since
then, the 49 The 2001 Rule 2001 Rule has applied to the Tongass.
The Proposed Alaska Roadless Ruleapplied to the Tongass until the final Alaska roadless rule was issued in 2020 (see “The Final Alaska Roadless Rule: The Tongass Roadless Exemption”). The Final Alaska Roadless Rule: The Tongass Roadless Exemption
In January 2018, the State of Alaska requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) In January 2018, the State of Alaska requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001 consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001
Rule.Rule.4550 The FS previously issued state-specific roadless rules for two states in response to their The FS previously issued state-specific roadless rules for two states in response to their
petitions under the 2005 Rule.petitions under the 2005 Rule.4651 The FS subsequently published a notice of intent on August 30, The FS subsequently published a notice of intent on August 30,
2018, to begin the environmental analysis process required to issue a new rule.47 The FS
published the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement on October 17, 2019.48 The
FS expects to publish a final environmental impact statement and final rule in 2020.49

39 42 Before the 2001 Rule was reinstated, the FS issued individual roadless rules for two states, Colorado and Idaho. T he 2001 Rule does not apply to these states. 43 Adam Vann, CRS Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, contributed to this section. 44 2001 Rule, “Public Comments on the Proposed Rule.” Public Comments on the Proposed Rule.”
4045 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the T ongass National Forest, Alaska,” 68 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the T ongass National Forest, Alaska,” 68 Federal
Register 75136, December 30, 2003. T he FS indicated that the exemption would be in place only until the agency was 75136, December 30, 2003. T he FS indicated that the exemption would be in place only until the agency was
able to promulgate a planned Alaska-wide roadless rule. able to promulgate a planned Alaska-wide roadless rule. Id. at 75138. . at 75138.
41462005 Rule, “Summary of Public Comments and the Departments’ Responses.” , “Summary of Public Comments and the Departments’ Responses.”
4247 Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 776 F. Supp. 2d 960, 976 (D. Alaska 2011). Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 776 F. Supp. 2d 960, 976 (D. Alaska 2011).
Administrative Procedure Act, P.L. 79-404. Administrative Procedure Act, P.L. 79-404.
4348 Id. at 976-77. at 976-77.
4449 Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 795 F.3d 956, 970 ( Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 795 F.3d 956, 970 (9th9 th Cir. 2015). Cir. 2015).
4550 Alaska: Letter from Andrew T . Mack, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, to Sonny Perdue, Alaska: Letter from Andrew T . Mack, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, to Sonny Perdue,
Secretary of Agriculture, January 19, 2018. Secretary of Agriculture, January 19, 2018.
4651 For information on the state-specific rules for these two states, Colorado and Idaho, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Congressional Research Service 8 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest 2018, to begin the environmental analysis process required to issue a new rule concerning roadless area management in the state of Alaska.52 The FS published the proposed rule and draft environmental impact statement on October 17, 2019.53 The proposed rule would have removed the 2001 Rule’s applicability to the Tongass and would have established an administrative process for issuing boundary corrections and modifications for IRAs in the Chugach National Forest. In developing the final rule, the FS considered six alternatives: the no-action alternative (leaving the 2001 Rule in place), the preferred alternative (the proposed rule specifying full exemption of the Tongass), and four additional alternatives. The additional alternatives comprise a range of provisions relating to timber, roads, energy and mineral development and transportation projects, among others. The FS published the final rule on October 29, 2020.54 The FS’s final rule specifies that the 2001 Rule shal not apply to the Tongass National Forest (hereinafter, the Tongass roadless exemption or exemption).55 As such, the rule removed al 9.3 mil ion IRA acres in the Tongass from roadless designation and the 2001 Rule’s prohibitions on timber harvesting, road construction, and reconstruction no longer apply to that land. Lands identified as suitable for timber production that were deemed unsuitable solely due to roadless designation in the Tongass forest plan are designated as suitable for timber production under the exemption (see “Timber Harvesting”).56 The rule also requires the FS to update the Tongass forest plan to conform with the rule, including updating the designation of lands suitable for timber production. Unlike the proposed rule, the final rule does not include any provisions related to the Chugach National Forest. In the explanatory matter accompanying the final rule, the FS discussed its rationale for choosing to exempt the Tongass from the 2001 Rule. The FS stated that the exemption does not contradict the factual findings it made in issuing the 2001 Rule (i.e., the findings on cumulative impacts of roads and timber harvesting, NFS management constraints, and litigation described in “The Roadless Rule”).57 Rather, the rule assigns different values to the various multiple uses of the Tongass.58 In the final environmental impact statement, the FS further specified that an overal reduction in federal regulations is beneficial for the American public and that substantial For information on the state-specific rules for these two states, Colorado and Idaho, see CRS Report R46504, Forest
Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. Utah also submitted a request for a , by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. Utah also submitted a request for a
state-specific roadless rule in 2018. Utah’s request remains pending. state-specific roadless rule in 2018. Utah’s request remains pending.
47 52 FS, “Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska,” 83 FS, “Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska,” 83 Federal Register 44252, August 30, 44252, August 30,
2018. 2018.
4853 For more information, see CRS Report R46505, The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule, by Anne A. Riddle. 54 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska,” FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska,” 8485 Federal Register
5552268688, October , October 17, 201929, 2020. Hereinafter referred to as . Hereinafter referred to as Proposed Rule 2019.
49 T he FS expected to publish the final environmental impact statement in April 2020 and the final rule in June 2020.
FS, “Alaska Roadless Rule Frequently Asked Questions,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/roadless/
alaskaroadlessrule/?cid=fseprd591995.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

The Proposed Rule
The FS’s proposed rule specifies that the 2001 Rule shal not apply to the Tongass National
Forest.50 As such, the proposed rule would remove al 9.2 mil ion IRA acres in the Tongass from
roadless designation, and the 2001 Rule’s prohibitions on timber harvesting, road construction,
and reconstruction would no longer apply to that land. Lands identified as suitable for timber
production that were deemed unsuitable solely due to roadless designation in the Tongass forest
plan would be designated as suitable for timber production under the proposed rule (see “Timber
Harvesting”).51 In addition, the proposed rule would establish an administrative process al owing
the Alaska Regional Forester to issue boundary corrections and modifications for IRAs
designated by the 2001 Rule in the Chugach National Forest.52
In developing the proposed rule, the FS considered six alternatives: the no-action alternative
(leaving the 2001 Rule in place), the preferred alternative (the proposed rule specifying full
exemption of the Tongass), and four additional alternatives. The additional alternatives comprise
a range of provisions relating to timber, roads, energy and mineral development, and
transportation projects, among others.
How the proposed rule would affect management of the Tongass is not yet clear and depends on a
number of external factors, such as timber markets. The FS’s anticipated effects are described
below, as specified in the draft environmental impact statement accompanying the proposed rule,
Final Rule 2020. T he rule is effective as of October 29, 2020 . 55 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska,” 85 Federal Register 68688, October 29, 2020. T he FS refers to this rule as the Alaska Roadless Rule. For the purposes of this report, CRS refers to the rule as the Tongass roadless exem ption to clarify that the rule does not apply to all national forests in Alaska. 56 T he FS is required to identify lands as suitable or unsuitable for timber production as part of the forest planning process. T imber harvesting cannot occur on lands unsuitable for timber harvesting, except for certain specified exceptions (e.g., salvage sales). Under the 2016 T ongass Land and Resource Management Plan (also known as the T ongass forest plan), some lands were identified as unsuitable for timber production due to their location in IRAs and otherwise would be deemed suitable for timber harvesting. Under the final rule, these restrictions have been removed. For more information, see CRS Report R45688, Tim ber Harvesting on Federal Lands, by Anne A. Riddle. 57 Final Rule 2020, “Decision Rationale and Important Considerations.” 58 Final Rule 2020, “Decision Rationale and Important Considerations.” Congressional Research Service 9 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest preference was given to the State of Alaska’s preferred policy, due to states’ insights into the balance between rural economic development and environmental protection.59 The FS also stated that the best mechanism to account for the wide variety of interests regarding Tongass resources and uses is to remove the applicability of the 2001 Rule and al ow land management to be governed by the “NFMA forest planning process”—the requirement that the FS plan forest management using a systematic, interdisciplinary process specified in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).60 The meaning of this is somewhat ambiguous, as the Tongass was managed according to NFMA before the exemption. On December 23, 2020, a coalition of Alaska Native tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and business organizations sued the USDA regarding the final rule.61 The suit remains pending as of the date of publication of this report. How the final rule will affect management of the Tongass is not yet clear and depends on a number of external factors, such as timber markets. The FS’s anticipated effects are described below, as specified in the final environmental impact statement, regulatory impact assessment, and cost-benefit assessment accompanying the rule, along with stakeholder concerns regarding along with stakeholder concerns regarding such impacts. such impacts.
Timber Harvesting
The proposed rule would exemptBy removing the 2001 Rule’s applicability to the Tongass, the final rule exempts the Tongass from the 2001 Rule’s provisions regarding timber the Tongass from the 2001 Rule’s provisions regarding timber
harvesting, which prohibit timber harvesting in IRAs except under specified circumstances.harvesting, which prohibit timber harvesting in IRAs except under specified circumstances.53
62 Under the Under the proposed ruleexemption, an additional, an additional 165 168,000 acres of old-growth timber and 20,000 acres of ,000 acres of old-growth timber and 20,000 acres of
young-growth timber young-growth timber would becomebecame suitable for timber suitable for timber production.production.5463 These areas These areas are currently
were previously designated as unsuitable for timber production due to designation as IRAs under the 2001 Rule. designated as unsuitable for timber production due to designation as IRAs under the 2001 Rule.
Under the current Tongass forest plan, about 230Prior to the exemption, about 227,000 acres of old-growth timber and 334,000 ,000 acres of old-growth timber and 334,000
acres of young-growth timber acres of young-growth timber arewere suitable for timber production suitable for timber production.55 The majority of suitable old
growth would be added in areas “more distant from roads.”56

50 Proposed Rule 2019, p. 55528 (proposed codification at 36 C.F.R. §294.50).
51 T he FS is required to identify lands as suitable or unsuitable for timber production as part of the forest planning
process. T imber harvesting cannot occur on lands unsuitable for timber harvesting, except for certain specified
except ions (e.g., salvage sales). Under the 2016 T ongass Land and Resource Management Plan, some lands were
identified as unsuitable for timber production due t o their location in IRAs and otherwise would be deemed suitable for
timber harvesting. Under the proposed rule, these restrictions would be removed. For more information, see CRS
Report R45688, Tim ber Harvesting on Federal Lands, by Anne A. Riddle.
52 Proposed Rule 2019, p. 55528 (proposed codification at 36 C.F.R. §294.51).
53; therefore, the exemption caused a 74% increase in suitable old-growth timber acres and a 6% increase in suitable young-growth timber acres.64 The majority of old-growth areas made suitable by the rule are “more distant from roads.”65 The practical impact of this provision is difficult to predict, due to a variety of factors. Timber harvesting in national forests is influenced by national and global timber market conditions, and timber harvesting in the Tongass is additional y influenced by regional economic factors.66 As 59 FEIS 2020, p. H-26-H-27. 60 Final Rule 2020, “Decision Rationale and Important Considerations.” National Forest Management Act (NFMA), P.L. 94-588. NFMA sets the framework for general management of the NFS and, as such , is applicable to all national forests since it was issued in 1976. Regulations for planning issued to implement NFMA have varied since that time. See CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Managem ent: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues for Congress, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle. 61 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Organized Village of Kake et al. v. Perdue, No. 1:20 -cv-00011 (D. Alaska Dec. 23, 2020) 62 For additional information on the timber provisions in the 2001 Rule, see CRS Report R46504, For additional information on the timber provisions in the 2001 Rule, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Service
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. , by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann.
54 DEIS 2019, p. 3-45 and p. 2-17.
55 According to DEIS 2019, young growth suitable acres “would increase slightly (3 through 6 percent ) under the action
alternatives.” It is unclear what percentage increase would apply to the preferred alternative. Suitable old-growth acres
would increase 72% for the proposed rule. DEIS 2019, p. 2-21.
5663 FEIS 2020, p. 2-16, T able 2-9. 64 FEIS 2020, p. ES-13 and p. 2-20. 65 CRS, calculation from CRS, calculation from DEIS 2019FEIS 2020, T able , T able 3.2-82-11, p. , p. 2-263-52. According to this table, approximately 59% of suitable old . According to this table, approximately 59% of suitable old
growth would be added in areas “growth would be added in areas “ more distant from roads.” T he meaning of “more distant from roads.” T he meaning of “ more distant from roads” is unclear.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

link to page 7 The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

The practical impact of this provision is difficult to predict, due to a variety of factors. Timber
harvesting in national forests is influenced by national and global timber market conditions, and
timber harvesting in the Tongass is additional y influenced by regional economic factors.57 As
more distant from roads” is unclear. 66 Unlike for other national forests, the Secretary of Agriculture must “seek to meet” market demand for timber from Congressional Research Service 10 link to page 7 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest described above (see described above (see “Special Considerations for Tongass Roads and Timber”), these factors ”), these factors
affect whether timber sales appraise positive and can be offered.affect whether timber sales appraise positive and can be offered.5867 The factors particularly The factors particularly
influenced by global market conditions (e.g., timber prices, trade) cannot be easily predicted. influenced by global market conditions (e.g., timber prices, trade) cannot be easily predicted.
Thus, the FS’s expected effects of the Thus, the FS’s expected effects of the proposed rule are sensitive to assumptions regarding these rule are sensitive to assumptions regarding these
factors. factors.
The FS asserts that overal harvest levels are not expected to vary significantly under the The FS asserts that overal harvest levels are not expected to vary significantly under the
proposed ruleexemption, compared with those planned under the current Tongass forest plan., compared with those planned under the current Tongass forest plan.5968 The FS The FS
further states that the main effect of the further states that the main effect of the proposed rule would exemption wil be to increase flexibilitybe to increase flexibility in sale in sale
development, spreading out the same general harvest level over increased acreagedevelopment, spreading out the same general harvest level over increased acreage.60 and improving the FS’s ability to make positively appraised sales that meet the timber industry’s needs.69 The FS The FS
expects the relative amount of old-growth and young-growth timber harvested under the expects the relative amount of old-growth and young-growth timber harvested under the proposed
rule would be the same.61 According to the FS, newly suitable old-growth areas may not be
economical y feasible to harvest, due to their remote nature and because the planned transition to
young growth is expected to continue.62 The FS predicts the rule would have a “minimal
beneficial”exemption will be the same as current management, because of the planned transition to primarily young-growth timber harvest specified in the Tongass forest plan.70 The FS predicts the rule wil have a smal beneficial effect on the forest products industry. effect on the forest products industry.63
The proposed rule71 The exemption’s potential effect on timber harvesting has generated particular concern and ’s potential effect on timber harvesting has generated particular concern and
interest. Stakeholders have expressed various views on the topic, some (though not al ) of which interest. Stakeholders have expressed various views on the topic, some (though not al ) of which
counter the FS’s conclusions. The FS’s predicted effects rely on assumptions regarding timber counter the FS’s conclusions. The FS’s predicted effects rely on assumptions regarding timber
market forces and adherence to market forces and adherence to planned timber harvest levels under the timber provisions in the 2016 Tongass forest plan Tongass forest plan and
amendment, such as projected timber sale levels and the young-growth transition.young-growth transition.6472 These factors are not binding and therefore do not ensure harvest These factors are not binding and therefore do not ensure harvest
levels wil remain the same (e.g., if trade or timber levels wil remain the same (e.g., if trade or timber price conditions were price conditions were more favorabledifferent than than
predicted or if forest planning objectives changed). predicted or if forest planning objectives changed).
Some have expressed concern that timber harvesting could be higher than predicted Some have expressed concern that timber harvesting could be higher than predicted under the
proposed rule, particularly harvesting of old-growth timber, with , particularly harvesting of old-growth timber, with concomitantassociated impacts to lands impacts to lands
and resources.and resources.6573 Although the FS predicts little additional old-growth harvest, Although the FS predicts little additional old-growth harvest, 89%most of the lands of the lands
that would becomethat became suitable for timber suitable for timber production are old growth. However, in concurrence with the FS’s analysis, other stakeholders have contended the exemption is unlikely to increase timber harvesting.74 Lands that are more distant from roads—the majority of the land made suitable for timber harvesting under the exemption—are likely to be more costly to harvest and less likely to be accessed for timber production.75 In general, it is unclear how the FS’s predicted effects of the exemption are to be reconciled—namely, that it wil improve the FS’s ability to offer economical y viable timber sales the production are old growth. The conclusion that little
additional old-growth timber would be harvested under the proposed rule may be particularly
sensitive to assumptions in the analysis. However, in concurrence with the FS’s analysis, other

57 Unlike other national forests, Secretary of Agriculture must “seek to meet” market demand for timber from the
T ongass both annually and for each forest planning cycle (T ongass both annually and for each forest planning cycle ( P.L. 101-626). Federal lawP.L. 101-626). Federal law and policy also control how, and and policy also control how, and
under what circumstances, timber from the T ongass may be exported from Alaska. For a history and summary of under what circumstances, timber from the T ongass may be exported from Alaska. For a history and summary of laws
laws related to the federal timber export ban, CRS Congressional Distribution related to the federal timber export ban, CRS Congressional Distribution MemorandumMemor andum CD1302059, CD1302059, History of Export
Restrictions of Federal Logs from the Western Continental United States, by Katie Hoover, is available, by Katie Hoover, is available to to
congressional clients upon request. congressional clients upon request. T he FS is alsoAs described in the box titled “T ongass T imber and the Young Growth T ransition, ” the FS also is shifting away from old-growth logging and toward harvesting shifting away from old-growth logging and toward harvesting
younger timber stands, as part of a transition toward greater support for other regionally important industries, such as younger timber stands, as part of a transition toward greater support for other regionally important industries, such as
fisheries and recreation. USDA, Office of the Secretary, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska ,
Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, 2013, and FS, Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan: Final
Environm ental Im pact Statement, R10-MB-603a (Washington, DC: January 2008).
58 DEIS 2019, p. 3-44.
59 DEIS 2019, p. 3-154.

60 DEIS 2019, p. 3-154. T he FS is referring to the ability to develop and offer sales with positive appraisals.
61 DEIS 2019, p. 3-44.
62 DEIS 2019, p. 2-21, and DEIS 2019, p. 3-154.
63 DEIS 2019, p. 2-25 (T able 2-11).
64 DEIS 2019, p. 2-21.
65fisheries and recreation. 67 FEIS 2020, p. 3-50. 68 FEIS 2020, p. ES-13. 69 FEIS 2020, p. ES-13. 70 FEIS 2020, p. 3-50 and p. ES-13. 71 FEIS 2020, p. 2-25 (T able 2-12). 72 FEIS 2019, p. 2-20. 73 For example, see Audubon Alaska, For example, see Audubon Alaska, Keeping the Roadless Rule in AK, November 5, 2019. , November 5, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

link to page 12 The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

stakeholders have contended the proposed rule is unlikely to increase timber harvesting.66 The FS
did not analyze potential timber harvest under varying scenarios (e.g., different timber price or
trade situations), nor did it analyze the likelihood of those scenarios occurring.67
Road Construction and Reconstruction
The proposed rule would exempt74 Liz Ruskin, “How Would Lifting the Roadless Rule Change T ongass Logging? Not Much, Both Sides Say,” Alaska Public Media, November 14, 2019. 75 Forest Service, Alaska Roadless Rulemaking: Regulatory Impact Assessment and Cost-Benefit Assessment, October 29, 2020. Hereinafter, RIA 2020. Congressional Research Service 11 link to page 13 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest but that overal timber harvest levels and relative amounts of young- and old-growth harvest wil not significantly change. Road Construction and Reconstruction The final rule exempts the Tongass from the 2001 Rule’s provisions related to roads, the Tongass from the 2001 Rule’s provisions related to roads,
which prohibit road construction and reconstruction which prohibit road construction and reconstruction in IRAs except in specified circumstances.except in specified circumstances.68 FS
estimates of impacts76 The impacts estimated by the FS of any new road construction or reconstruction due to the of any new road construction or reconstruction due to the proposedfinal rule are rule are
based on a 2016 baseline, when the Tongass had 5,100 miles of roads, including both forest based on a 2016 baseline, when the Tongass had 5,100 miles of roads, including both forest
transportation system roads and other roads.transportation system roads and other roads.6977 At that time, the FS anticipated an additional 1,000 At that time, the FS anticipated an additional 1,000
miles of new roads would be built over the next 100 years and 500 miles of roads would be miles of new roads would be built over the next 100 years and 500 miles of roads would be
constructed or reconstructed over decommissioned roadbeds. constructed or reconstructed over decommissioned roadbeds.7078
The practical implications of this provision are difficult to predict precisely, for a variety of The practical implications of this provision are difficult to predict precisely, for a variety of
reasons. Roads in the Tongass are largely developed in support of timber harvesting, as opposed reasons. Roads in the Tongass are largely developed in support of timber harvesting, as opposed
to regional transportation purposes (although roads primarily for regional transportation do pass to regional transportation purposes (although roads primarily for regional transportation do pass
through the Tongass).through the Tongass).7179 The FS specifies that more road miles under the The FS specifies that more road miles under the proposed ruleexemption are are
expected because the expected because the proposed rule would addexemption makes areas suitable for timber harvest in relatively areas suitable for timber harvest in relatively more more
remote areas, remote areas, which would require more road construction to reach.which would require more road construction to reach.7280 The amount of additional The amount of additional
road miles depends on the level of timber harvesting: if timber harvesting levels are lower than road miles depends on the level of timber harvesting: if timber harvesting levels are lower than
anticipated, fewer additional road miles than expected may be added, whereas if timber anticipated, fewer additional road miles than expected may be added, whereas if timber
harvesting levels are higher than anticipated, more additional road miles than expected may be harvesting levels are higher than anticipated, more additional road miles than expected may be
added.added.73 Uncertainties surrounding road construction and reconstruction under the Uncertainties surrounding road construction and reconstruction under the proposed rule
exemption may be compounded by may be compounded by assumptions or uncertainties regarding timber harvesting levels (see assumptions or uncertainties regarding timber harvesting levels (see
“Timber Harvesting”). ).
Some stakeholders have expressed concern that road construction may increase, with Some stakeholders have expressed concern that road construction may increase, with concomitantparal el
fiscal and environmental impacts.fiscal and environmental impacts.7481 One original purpose of the 2001 Rule was to control costs One original purpose of the 2001 Rule was to control costs
associated with maintaining the existing NFS road network.associated with maintaining the existing NFS road network.7582 As of 2019, the FS estimated the road maintenance backlog in Alaska to be $68 mil ion.83 In regard to the exemption, the FS specifies that uncertainty exists regarding the funds to maintain and decommission the existing NFS road network and that risks are associated with inadequate funding, such as increased safety 76 As of 2019, the FS estimated the

66 Liz Ruskin, “How Would Lifting the Roadless Rule Change T ongass Logging? Not Much, Both Sides Say,” Alaska
Public Media, November 14, 2019.
67 DEIS 2019, “Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis: Changes in T imber Markets,” p. 1-10.
68 For additional information on road construction and reconstruction provisions in the 2001 Rule, see CRS Report For additional information on road construction and reconstruction provisions in the 2001 Rule, see CRS Report
R46504, R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann. , by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann.
69 DEIS 201977 FEIS 2020, p. 3-, p. 3-144.
70 DEIS 2019, p. 3-144166. 78 FEIS 2020, p. 3-166. T he FS specified that proposed expansions to the southeast Alaska regional road network . T he FS specified that proposed expansions to the southeast Alaska regional road network
would cross NFS lands, though it is unclear whether the proposed road construction would be affected by either the would cross NFS lands, though it is unclear whether the proposed road construction would be affected by either the
2001 Rule or the proposed rule. Under the 2001 Rule, federal aid highway projects are permitted under certain 2001 Rule or the proposed rule. Under the 2001 Rule, federal aid highway projects are permitted under certain
circumstances, and the FS has granted requests to establish state and local highways in current IRAs. Furthermore, circumstances, and the FS has granted requests to establish state and local highways in current IRAs. Furthermore,
some such roads were authorized through P.L. 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient T ransportation Equity some such roads were authorized through P.L. 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient T ransportation Equity
Act. Act.
71 DEIS 201979 FEIS 2020, p. 3-, p. 3-113163. .
72 DEIS 2019, p. 2-24.
73 DEIS 201980 FEIS 2020, p. 3-, p. 3-148166. .
7481 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Investigations, Roads to Ruin: Exam ining the Im pacts of Rem oving National Forest Roadless Protections, T estimony , T estimony
of Autumn Hanna, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019, or Mark Kaelke, “ Fish and Fiscal Responsibility: Let’s of Autumn Hanna, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019, or Mark Kaelke, “ Fish and Fiscal Responsibility: Let’s
Protect the Roadless Rule,” Protect the Roadless Rule,” Trout Unlim ited, December 10, 2019. , December 10, 2019.
7582 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for Action.” 83 FS, Responses to Questions for the Record Submitted by Rep. Mike Quigley Following U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Exam ining the Spending Priorities and Missions of the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Managem ent , 116th Cong., 2nd sess., April 10, 2019. Congressional Research Service 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 15 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for Action.”
Congressional Research Service
11

---

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 6 link to page 6 The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

road maintenance backlog in Alaska to be $68 mil ion.76 In regard to the proposed rule, the FS
specifies that uncertainty exists regarding the funds to maintain the existing NFS road network
and that risks are associated with inadequate funding, such as increased safety hazards and hazards and
adverse effects to fish, water quality, and wildlife.adverse effects to fish, water quality, and wildlife.7784 However, the likelihood of future funding However, the likelihood of future funding
shortfal s is shortfal s is uncleardifficult to predict, as the balance of deferred maintenance depends on future appropriations and revenues, the size and condition of the Tongass road network, and other uncertain future conditions. The degree to which the FS’s analysis accounts for the possibility of . The degree to which the FS’s analysis accounts for the possibility of
imperfectly maintained roads (either new or existing) imperfectly maintained roads (either new or existing) also is unclear. The FS estimates that additional road maintenance due the exemption (i.e., in addition to current conditions) wil result in an annual cost to the agency of $250,000.85 Overall Impacts of the Exemption The FS predicts the exemption wil have a moderate adverseis unclear, and it does not appear to
consider Tongass road construction and reconstruction costs as a factor.
Overall Impacts of the Proposed Rule
The FS predicts the proposed rule would have a “moderate adverse” effect on overal protection effect on overal protection
of roadless area characteristics in the Tongass.of roadless area characteristics in the Tongass.7886 The FS anticipates the The FS anticipates the proposed rule would exemption wil have have
a minimal a smal to moderate beneficial impact on some local and regional economic activities (e.g., the to moderate beneficial impact on some local and regional economic activities (e.g., the
forest products industry and development of leasable minerals, state transportation projects, and forest products industry and development of leasable minerals, state transportation projects, and
renewable energy projects), no impact on others (e.g., the fisheries industry and development of renewable energy projects), no impact on others (e.g., the fisheries industry and development of
locatable minerals), and a locatable minerals), and a minimal smal adverse effect on the visitor industry.adverse effect on the visitor industry.7987 The FS predicts effects The FS predicts effects
on ecosystems and wildlife general y on ecosystems and wildlife general y would wil be similar to predicted effects under current be similar to predicted effects under current
management, management, with minimal increases in road density and young-growth timber harvesting in with minimal increases in road density and young-growth timber harvesting in
special habitats.special habitats.8088
The FS’s predicted impacts to these and other resources are sensitive to the agency’s expectations The FS’s predicted impacts to these and other resources are sensitive to the agency’s expectations
regarding timber harvesting and roads, which depend on a number of assumptions (seeregarding timber harvesting and roads, which depend on a number of assumptions (see “Timber
Harvesting” and and “Road Construction and Reconstruction”). For example, ”). For example, although the FS the FS
specifies that roads pose the “greatest risk” to fish resources in the Tongass through increased
sedimentation and other impacts, the agency also notes that overal effects are expected to be
minimal because timber harvesting is not predicted to increase.81 If timber harvesting increased,
fishspecifies that the effects on old-growth dependent wildlife species are expected to be “almost identical” to effects predicted under current management, because long-term old-growth timber harvesting and road densities are not predicted to change significantly.89 If timber harvesting or road density increased, these wildlife resources might face greater impacts. In other cases, impacts are not assessed at a resources might face greater impacts. In other cases, impacts are not assessed at a
programmatic or cumulative level and the FS specifies that impacts would be assessed for programmatic or cumulative level and the FS specifies that impacts would be assessed for
applicable projects on a case-by-case basis. For example, the FS specifies that applicable projects on a case-by-case basis. For example, the FS specifies that analyses of habitat
fragmentation and connectivity, impacts to water quality and quantity, impacts to water quality and quantity, and impacts to soilssoils, and essential fish habitat would would
be assessed for be assessed for individual individual projects.projects.8290 Therefore, the expected overal impact to these Tongass Therefore, the expected overal impact to these Tongass
lands and resources lands and resources under the under the proposed rule is unclear.
Some stakeholders have raised concerns regarding overal impacts to the Tongass from the
proposed rule on a variety of economic, ecological, and cultural resources and uses (see “The
Tongass National Forest in Context”). For example, some have expressed concern that the rule
may disproportionately affect the seafood and tourism industries (e.g., through impacts to salmon
spawning habitat or scenic views).83 Others have expressed concern that increased timber

76 FS, Responses to Questions for the Record Submitted by Rep. Mike Quigley Following U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Exam ining the
Spending Priorities and Missions of the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Managem ent, 116th Cong., 2nd
sess., April 10, 2019.
77 DEIS 2019, p. 3-148.
78 DEIS 2019, p. 2-25 (T able 2-11).
79 DEIS 2019, p. 2-25 (T able 2-11).
80 DEIS 2019, p. 2-25 (T able 2-11exemption is unclear. In the cost-benefit analysis associated with the rulemaking, the FS estimates economic impacts of the rulemaking could range from an upper-bound net present value of approximately $2.5 mil ion to $3.5 mil ion annual y to a lower-bound net present value of approximately -$27.8 mil ion to -$29.5 mil ion annual y.91 The FS included the predicted economic costs or benefits of increased stumpage value (the market price of standing trees), costs to recreation and tourism, forgone old-growth conservation benefits, and agency road maintenance costs in this analysis.92 Most of the costs were associated with the loss of old-growth conservation benefits; only increased stumpage 84 FEIS 2020, p. 3-170. 85 RIA 2020, T able 10. 86 FEIS 2020, p. 2-25 (T able 2-12). 87 FEIS 2020, p. 2-25 (T able 2-12). 88 FEIS 2020, p. 2-25 (T able 2-12). “Special habitats” include beach and estuary fringes, riparian management areas, ). “Special habitats” include beach and estuary fringes, riparian management areas,
and old-growth mosaic habitats. and old-growth mosaic habitats.
81 DEIS 2019, p. 3-112.
82 DEIS 2019, p. 1-8.
83 For example, see Adelyn Baxter, “T ourism Advocates Say Proposed Roadless Rule Exemption T hreatens Industry’s
89 FEIS 2020, p. 164. 90 FEIS 2020, p. 1-11. 91 RIA 2020, T able 11. Net present value is a sum of discounted future costs and benefits. 92 RIA 2020, T able 11. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
1213 link to page 6 link to page 6 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest value was associated with a benefit. Some sectors (such as energy and mineral development, commercial fisheries, and infrastructure development) were not included because the FS predicted the exemption would have no significant effects.93 In other cases (e.g., scenic values, traditional cultural properties and sacred sites), economic impacts were not estimated due to a lack of available data, uncertainty about future conditions, or other factors.94 Therefore, the costs and benefits given may not represent the actual costs and benefits of the exemption. Issues for Congress Debates surrounding Tongass roadless area management have generated interest on a national scale.95 These debates often center on the impacts to communities and resources, due either to the rule itself or to potential differences between the rule and the 2001 Rule. Certain issues also may relate to the FS’s rulemaking process. Impacts to Lands, Resources, and Communities: Stakeholder Views Stakeholders hold a variety of views regarding impacts from the exemption on various economic, ecological, and cultural resources and uses of the Tongass, in addition to the perspectives on timber harvesting and road construction discussed above (see “The Tongass National Forest in Context”). For example, some have expressed concern that the rule may negatively affect the seafood and tourism industries (e.g., through impacts to salmon spawning habitat or scenic views).96 Others have expressed concern that increased timber harvesting due to the rule may affect endangered species habitat, carbon sequestration, or other ecological resources.97 Some may assert the exemption wil increase opportunities for rural economic development.98 Other stakeholders have stated the exemption may improve regional residents’ access to technology (e.g., internet access), transportation, or affordable clean energy.99 Some FS conclusions appear to broadly align with various stakeholder views, whereas others do not. For example, the FS’s cost-benefit analysis finds the exemption would generate costs to the tourism industry and result in forgone old-growth conservation benefits but asserts the exemption wil have no impact on fisheries.100 In general, the depth and range of possible impacts of the exemption, the uncertainty associated with future Tongass conditions and management (e.g., future timber harvesting levels or adherence to current forest plan guidelines), and the lack of data 93 RIA 2020. 94 RIA 2020. 95 See, for example, Coral Davenport, “Forest Service Backs an End to Limits on Roads in Alaska’s T ongass Forest,” New York Tim es, October 15, 2019, or James Freeman, “ T rump Says Goodbye to More Red T ape,” Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2019. 96 For example, see Adelyn Baxter, “T ourism Advocates Say Proposed Roadless Rule Exemption T hreatens Industry’s

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

harvesting due to the rule may affect endangered species habitat, carbon sequestration, or other
ecological resources.84 It is difficult to assess these and other concerns in the context of the FS’s
analysis. Such concerns do not always directly respond to the FS’s projected impacts from the
rule, making direct comparisons difficult.85 Furthermore, the FS’s projected impacts depend on
specific future timber harvesting levels (and their association with roads), which are not
guaranteed to occur.
Potential Impacts to the Chugach from the Proposed Rule
In contrast to its effect on the Tongass, the proposed rule would not remove the applicability of
the 2001 Rule to the Chugach National Forest. Chugach IRAs would remain designated, and the
2001 Rule’s provisions related to IRAs would remain in place. The proposed rule would establish
an administrative process al owing the Alaska Regional Forester to issue boundary corrections
and modifications for IRAs designated by the 2001 Rule on the Chugach National Forest.86
Specifical y, after a 30-day comment period, the Alaska Regional Forester would be able to
change the boundaries of IRAs in the Chugach to rectify errors (e.g., clerical and typographical
errors); to reflect improvements in mapping technology; or to incorporate changes in IRA acres
since 2001, such as excluding areas that have since been designated as wilderness (boundary
corrections). After a 45-day comment period, the proposed rule would al ow the Alaska Regional
Forester to change the boundaries or classifications of an IRA (boundary modifications). The term
“classification” is not defined in the proposed rule.
The FS specifies that this provision is administrative in nature and does not have any
environmental effects.87 However, this provision would al ow the Alaska Regional Forester to
change the boundary of an IRA following a public comment period. A decision by the Alaska
Regional Forester to change the boundary of an IRA would remove the 2001 Rule’s prohibitions
on timber harvesting, road construction, or road reconstruction in any area excluded by the new
IRA boundary. The FS did not assess the likelihood of such changes being made or the impacts of
such changes. Some have characterized the proposed rule as broad and open-ended, potential y
al owing for large changes to the Chugach.88 Others assert that the proposed rule may al ow
logging in more cost-effective areas of the Chugach, thereby bolstering the local economy.89

Growth,” Alaska Public Media KT OO-Juneau, October 17, 2019, and Laine Welch, “Some Southeast Alaska Growth,” Alaska Public Media KT OO-Juneau, October 17, 2019, and Laine Welch, “Some Southeast Alaska
Fishermen Speak Out Against Push to Exempt T ongass from Roadless Rule,” Fishermen Speak Out Against Push to Exempt T ongass from Roadless Rule,” Anchorage Daily News, November 6, November 6,
2019. 2019.
8497 For example, see Patrick Lavin, “ Protecting Wildlife in America’s Rainforest For example, see Patrick Lavin, “ Protecting Wildlife in America’s Rainforest ,” ,” Defenders of Wildlife (blog), October (blog), October
4, 2018, and Bobby Magill, “‘Hail Mary Pass’ in Alaska’s T ongass Forest Sets Up Carbon Clash,” 4, 2018, and Bobby Magill, “‘Hail Mary Pass’ in Alaska’s T ongass Forest Sets Up Carbon Clash,” Bloomberg Law, ,
December 9, 2019. December 9, 2019.
85 CRS identified one source that responded to the FS’s analysis directly, which asserted that the FS’s analysis of
carbon impacts due to timber harvesting was deficient. Dominick DellaSala, Analysis of Carbon Storage in Roadless
Areas of the Tongass National Forest, Geos Institute, 2019, at http://forestlegacies.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/
tongass_carbon_2019_12_16.pdf.
86 Proposed Rule 2019, at p. 55528 (proposed codification at 36 C.F.R. §294.51).
87 DEIS 2019, p. 1-12.
88 Benjamin Hulac, “Road Proposal for T ongass Includes Another Alaska Forest,” Roll Call, December 16, 2019,
hereinafter cited as Hulac, “Road Proposal for T ongass.”
89 Hulac, “Road Proposal for T ongass.”
Congressional Research Service
13

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

Issues for Congress
Debates surrounding the proposed Alaska Roadless Rule have generated interest on a national
scale.90 These debates often center on the impacts to communities and resources, either due to the
proposed rule itself or due to potential differences between the proposed rule and the 2001 Rule.
Certain issues also may relate to the FS’s rulemaking process itself.
Impacts to Lands, Resources, and Communities: Stakeholder Views
98 For example, see Marc Heller, “T rump’s T ongass rule deepens Alaska tribal divides,” E&E News, December 11, 2019. 99 For example, see Elwood Brehmer, “What Comes After the Roadless Rule Repeal?,” Alaska Journal of Commerce, November 11, 2020. 100 RIA 2020. Congressional Research Service 14 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest on many possible impacts mean it is often difficult to evaluate competing claims on the impacts of the exemption. Stakeholders may support the following courses of action: Stakeholders may support the following courses of action:
 maintaining the  maintaining the 2001Alaska Roadless Rule’s current provisions and applicability Rule’s current provisions and applicability (i.e., continuing to exempt the Tongass from the 2001 Rule); ;
 maintaining the general framework of the  maintaining the general framework of the 2001Alaska Roadless Rule but altering its Rule but altering its provisions or provisions or
applicability; or
 removing the 2001 Rule’s applicability to Alaska altogether and either replacing
the rule or returning roadless area management of Alaska’s national forests to
regional decisionmaking.
In general, these debates have focused on impacts to the Tongass, although some have expressed
interest about the potential rule’s impacts to the Chugach.91
Proponents of the 2001 Rule often seek to maintain its current provisionsapplicability;  revoking the Alaska Roadless Rule altogether, thereby reinstating the applicability of the 2001 Rule to the Tongass, or revoking and replacing the rule; or  action not directly related to the rulemaking, such as legislative action (see “Options for Congress”). Opponents of the exemption may seek to reinstate the applicability of the 2001 Rule, though some may , though some may
advocate for broadening its prohibitions or applicabilityadvocate for broadening its prohibitions or applicability. or applying other resource protections to the Tongass. Proponents often seek to maintain or Proponents often seek to maintain or
enhance resource protectionsenhance resource protections.92 for the Tongass.101 Some groups may assert that the 2001 Rule assists in protecting Some groups may assert that the 2001 Rule assists in protecting
resource conditions that support economical y significant sectors.resource conditions that support economical y significant sectors.93102 Some also may contend that Some also may contend that
lifting the 2001 Rulelifting the 2001 Rule would not significantly help the Alaska timber industry.would not significantly help the Alaska timber industry.94103 Some groups may Some groups may
assert assert that timber harvesting in the Tongass is an inefficient use of federal resources.that timber harvesting in the Tongass is an inefficient use of federal resources.95
Opponents of the 2001 Rule may seek to make less stringent the rule’s current provisions or, as
the State of Alaska proposed, to remove them altogether, particularly in the Tongass104 Proponents of the exemption may seek to maintain its current provisions or to increase access to certain Tongass lands and resources. Those . Those
favoring this position often seek to favoring this position often seek to open IRAs to various resource uses—in particular, to open
Tongass IRAs to timber harvesting.ensure former IRAs are open to various resource uses.105 Such groups may contend Such groups may contend that the 2001 Rule negatively the 2001 Rule negatively
affectsaffected rural economic prosperity, with particularly sustained and detrimental impacts to the rural economic prosperity, with particularly sustained and detrimental impacts to the

90 See, for example, Coral Davenport, “Forest Service Backs an End to Limits on Roads in Alaska’s T ongass Forest,”
New York Tim es, October 15, 2019, or James Freeman, “ T rump Says Goodbye to More Red T ape,” Wall Street
Journal, August 27, 2019.
91 For example, see Jenny Weis, “ T he Chugach National Forest Caught Up in Roadless Mess,” Trout Unlimited,
October 20, 2019.
92 Alaska timber industry.106 Some also may contend the 2001 Rule was not needed to confer additional resource protection.107 101 For example, see Ken Rait, For example, see Ken Rait, Tongass National Forest Plan Threatens Wildlife, Economy, and More, Pew Charitable , Pew Charitable
T rusts, December 10, 2019. T rusts, December 10, 2019.
93102 For example, see Laine Welch, “Some Southeast Alaska Fishermen Speak Out Against Push to Exempt T ongass For example, see Laine Welch, “Some Southeast Alaska Fishermen Speak Out Against Push to Exempt T ongass
from Roadless Rule,” from Roadless Rule,” Anchorage Daily News, November 6, 2019, and Adelyn Baxter, “T ourism Advocates Say , November 6, 2019, and Adelyn Baxter, “T ourism Advocates Say
Proposed Roadless Rule Exemption T hreatens Industry’s Growth,” Alaska Public Media KT 00Proposed Roadless Rule Exemption T hreatens Industry’s Growth,” Alaska Public Media KT 00—-Juneau, October 19, Juneau, October 19,
2019. 2019.
94103 For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and For example, see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Investigations, Roads to Ruin: Exam ining the Im pacts of Rem oving National Forest Roadless Protections, T estimony , T estimony
of James Furnish, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019 (also described in Liz Ruskin, “ How Would Lifting the of James Furnish, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019 (also described in Liz Ruskin, “ How Would Lifting the
Roadless Rule Change T ongass Logging? Not Much, Both Sides Say,” Alaska Public Media, November 14, 2019). Roadless Rule Change T ongass Logging? Not Much, Both Sides Say,” Alaska Public Media, November 14, 2019).
95104 For example, see T axpayers for Common Sense, For example, see T axpayers for Common Sense, Pain in the Tongass—The Sequel, November 15, 2019. , November 15, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

Alaska timber industry.96 Some also may contend that the 2001 Rule is not needed to confer
additional resource protection.97
Concerns Regarding the Forest Service’s Rulemaking Process
The FS has provided grant funding to105 For example, see FEIS 2020, p. H-25. 106 For example, see testimony of Kyle Moselle, Associate Director, Office of Project Management and Permitting, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Roads to Ruin: Exam ining the Im pacts of Rem oving National Forest Roadless Protections, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019. 107 For example, Senator Lisa Murkowski, “Why I Support T rump’s Proposal to Lift Restrictions in the T ongass,” Washington Post, September 25, 2019. Congressional Research Service 15 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest Uses of Federal Funding During the Rulemaking Process To support the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of
Forestry (Alaska DOF) Forestry (Alaska DOF) to support its in its role as a cooperating agency in the rulemaking processrole as a cooperating agency in the rulemaking process. The
, the FS awarded $2 mil ion in grant funding to Alaska DOF by modifying an existing grant.108 The FS also entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Alaska Forest Association (AFA), FS also entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Alaska Forest Association (AFA),
a trade group, to provide industry perspective on the economic viability of timber harvesting in a trade group, to provide industry perspective on the economic viability of timber harvesting in
the Tongass.the Tongass.98109 As of September 2019, the Alaska DOF had awarded $200,000 of FS grant funding As of September 2019, the Alaska DOF had awarded $200,000 of FS grant funding
to the AFA for to the AFA for use in support of the rulemaking process.use in support of the rulemaking process.99 At that time, the FS and the Alaska
DOF had not awarded funding to some other cooperating agencies, such as tribal governments.100
It is also unclear if110 After the FS awarded grant funding to Alaska DOF, some questioned whether the awarded funding could properly be used for rulemaking activities. the awarded funding could properly be used for rulemaking activities.101111 Some Some
have al egedal eged that awarding this that awarding this funding to the State of Alaska, which requested the rulemaking, or funding to the State of Alaska, which requested the rulemaking, or
to the AFAto the AFA represents a , represented a conflict of interest, though others have statedconflict of interest, though others have stated that the uses of grant funds the uses of grant funds
were appropriate.102 were appropriate.112 The FS and the Alaska DOF did not award funding to other cooperating agencies, such as tribal governments, leading some to al ege that certain interests were favored over others in the rulemaking process.113 In November 2019, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture In November 2019, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture
Committee and the chairman Committee and the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee requested that the USDA investigate the award and subsequent uses of the Alaska DOF grant.114 In response to the request, the USDA Office of the Inspector General investigated the issue.115 Although the FS has the authority to provide funding to agencies cooperating in rulemaking activities (including the State of Alaska), the USDA found the processes the FS used to award the grant to Alaska did not comply with federal laws and regulations.116 Specifical y, the FS issued the funds by modifying an existing grant under the 108 FS Modification of Grant or Agreement, FS Grant or Agreement No. 18 -DG-11100106, Modification No. 02, October 22, 2018. 109of the House Natural Resources Committee requested that the

96 For example, see testimony of Kyle Moselle, Associate Director, Office of Project Management and Permitting,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, Roads to Ruin: Exam ining the Im pacts of Rem oving National Forest Roadless
Protections, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019.
97 For example, Senator Lisa Murkowski, “Why I Support T rump’s Proposal to Lift Restrictions in the T ongass,”
Washington Post, September 25, 2019.
98 Memorandum of Understanding Between United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Alaska
Forest Association, FS Agreement No. 17-MU-11100500-012, March 2017., FS Agreement No. 17-MU-11100500-012, March 2017.
99110 T he Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Forestry, entered into two cooperative agreements T he Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Forestry, entered into two cooperative agreements
with the Alaska Forest Association (AFA) related to the rulemaking, both titled with the Alaska Forest Association (AFA) related to the rulemaking, both titled Cooperative Agreem ent Between
Division of Forestry, DNR, State of Alaska Departm ent of Natural Resources and Alaska Forest Association and datedand dated
March 19, 2019, available accompanying Elizabeth Jenkins, “Faced with an Important Decision on the T ongass, Why March 19, 2019, available accompanying Elizabeth Jenkins, “Faced with an Important Decision on the T ongass, Why
Is the Federal Government Supporting Alaska’s T imber Industry?,” Alaska Public Media KT 00-Juneau, September 24, Is the Federal Government Supporting Alaska’s T imber Industry?,” Alaska Public Media KT 00-Juneau, September 24,
2019, hereinafter cited as Jenkins, “Important Decision on the T ongass.”2019, hereinafter cited as Jenkins, “Important Decision on the T ongass.” T he agreements were for two purposes: (1) to T he agreements were for two purposes: (1) to
provide estimates of roadless acreage, timber volume in roadless areas, and economicallyprovide estimates of roadless acreage, timber volume in roadless areas, and economically viable timber in roadless viable timber in roadless
areas in support of the rulemaking and (2) to provide work plans for work developed under the FS-AFA memorandum areas in support of the rulemaking and (2) to provide work plans for work developed under the FS-AFA memorandum
of understanding. Both cooperative agreements were supported by FS funding. of understanding. Both cooperative agreements were supported by FS funding.
100 In 2018, the FS modified an existing FS grant to the Alaska DNR to grant the Alaska DNR an additional $2.0
million in funding. T he purpose of the grant funds was to support the proposed FS rulemaking for IRAs in Alaska. T he
source of the funds for the modified grant is unclear, but some funds may be from the FS State Fire Assistance grant
program, which provides financial and technical assistance, training, and equipment to state foresters to promote fire
protection on nonfederal lands. Because the source of the funding in the modified grant agreement is unclear, it is also
unclear whether the award was properly made or the awarded funds were properly used. FS Modi fication of Grant or
Agreement, FS Grant or Agreement No. 18 -DG-11100106, Modification No. 02, October 22, 2018. Additional
discussion and a copy of the grant modification is available at Elizabeth Jenkins, “ Records Show Federal Government,
T asked with Rewriting T ongass Rules, Also Funded Alaska T imber Group,” Alaska Public Media KT 00-Juneau,
September 24, 2019.
101 Jenkins, “Important Decision on the T ongass”; Elwood Brehmer, “ Invoices Reveal How Federal Grant Was Used on
‘Roadless Rule’ Work in Alaska’s T ongass National Forest,” Anchorage Daily News, January 24, 2020.
102 For example, see Earthjustice, “Forest Service Paying T imber Industry to Pick Which T rees It Wants in Alaska’s
T ongass National Forest,” January 27, 2020, and State of Alaska DNR, “DNR Commissioner Says USFS Roadless
Grant Used Properly,” press release, November 20, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

USDA investigate the award and subsequent uses of the grant.103 In response to the request, the
USDA Office of the Inspector General has opened an investigation, which is ongoing.104
Options for Congress
Congress has already engaged in the FS Alaska roadless rulemaking process through various
means, such as hearings, correspondence with the USDA, and others.105 If desired, options for
congressional action regarding roadless areas in Alaska are broad and varied, depending on what
aspect of Alaska roadless area management Congress wishes to address. Some of these options
are detailed below.
Alternatively, Congress may decide that action related to the newly issued rule is not desirable at
this time. For example, Congress may elect to observe FS implementation of the rule and its
effect on related lands and resources. Should the rule be chal enged in court, Congress also may
wish to see how such chal enges are resolved.
Oversight
Congress might broadly use its oversight powers to review FS activities, such as the FS’s
rulemaking process and/or its administration of roadless areas. Such approaches might include
directing the FS to inventory or report on current roadless area conditions, the 2001 Rule’s impact
to specified resources or economic sectors, the FS’s planned implementation of provisions of the
2001 Rule (if such planning exists), or other aspects of roadless area management. Similarly,
Congress may wish to continue oversight activities related to the FS rulemaking process, such as
overseeing the FS’s cooperation with the State of Alaska or other groups.
Respond to Newly Issued Forest Service Roadless Regulations
In the case of newly issued regulations, Congress can review the rule within a specified time
frame and may revoke the rule, if desired.106

103 Letter from the Honorable Debbie Stabenow, Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry, and the Honorable Raul Grijalva, Charman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural
Resources, to Phillis K. Fong, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 18, 2018.
104 Letter from Phillis K. Fong, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to the Honorable Debbie Staben ow,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and the Honorable Raul Grijalva,
Charman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, February 19, 2020.
105111 Jenkins, “Important Decision on the T ongass”; Elwood Brehmer, “ Invoices Reveal How Federal Grant Was Used on ‘Roadless Rule’ Work in Alaska’s T ongass National Forest ,” Anchorage Daily News, January 24, 2020. 112 For example, see Earthjustice, “Forest Service Paying T imber Industry to Pick Which T rees It Wants in Alaska’s T ongass National Forest,” January 27, 2020, and State of Alaska DNR, “DNR Commissioner Says USFS Roadless Grant Used Properly,” press release, November 20, 2019. 113 Elizabeth Jenkins, “ Records Show Federal Government, T asked with Rewriting T ongass Rules, Also Funded Alaska T imber Group,” Alaska Public Media KT 00-Juneau, September 24, 2019. 114 Letter from the Honorable Debbie Stabenow, Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and the Honorable Raúl Grijalva, Chairman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, to Phillis K. Fong, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 18, 2018. 115 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Inspector General, Forest Service Grant for Roadless Area Managem ent in the State of Alaska, Inspection Report 08801-00001-24, December 15, 2020. Hereinafter, USDA OIG 2020. 116 USDA OIG 2020. Congressional Research Service 16 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, which authorizes federal assistance for nonfederal forestry, not federal forests such as the Tongass.117 Further, because the funding was discretionary, the funding should have been awarded by a competitive process. The funding had not yet been issued to the State of Alaska, and the USDA specified that the FS should not do so.118 The USDA did not specifical y investigate whether the grant funding represented favoritism on the part of the FS but noted that other cooperating agencies were not aware funding was available because the funding was not al ocated through a competitive process.119 Tribal Consultation Federal agencies, including the FS, are required to undergo government-to-government consultation with federal y recognized Indian or Alaska Native tribes (tribes or tribal governments) when developing policies that have tribal implications.120 Tribal governments also may act as cooperating agencies during environmental analysis of significant federal actions, if al owed by the lead federal agency.121 Alaska Native tribal governments participated in the rulemaking process for the Alaska Roadless Rule in a variety of ways, including as cooperating agencies and through government-to-government consultation. However, multiple Alaska Native tribal governments have al eged the FS did not al ow tribal input to meaningfully inform the Alaska roadless rulemaking process. Six Alaska Native tribal governments joined the rulemaking process as cooperating agencies.122 These six tribes al ege the USDA disregarded their input, conducted insufficient outreach to them, and set arbitrary deadlines that prevented them from providing substantive input.123 In July 2019, one tribe, the Organized Vil age of Kake, formal y withdrew from cooperator status.124 On October 13, 2020, the remaining five tribes formal y withdrew as cooperators.125 These five tribes demanded the FS issue an updated environmental impact statement reflecting that the tribes had withdrawn their cooperation. The tribes specified that the choice of full exemption over other alternatives developed with tribal collaboration during the environmental analysis process showed that the tribes’ concerns had not been incorporated into the final decision.126 The tribes further specified that full exemption was chosen over other alternatives due to “political interference,” in a breach of the public and collaborative rulemaking process.127 117 Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, P.L. 95-313. 118 USDA OIG 2020. 119 USDA OIG 2020. 120 Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian T ribal Governments,” 65 Federal Register 67249, November 9, 2000. USDA Department Regulation 1350 -002, “ Tribal Consultation, Coordination, and Collaboration,” January 18, 2013. 121 40 C.F.R. §§1501.8, 1508.1. 122 Personal communication, FS legislative affairs office, December 2, 2020. 123 For example, see Jacob Resneck, “‘Another broken promise’: T ribes say feds ignored their input on Roadless Rule exemption for T ongass,” CoastAlaska-Juneau, October 16, 2020, and USDA Letter 2020. 124 Personal communication, FS legislative affairs office, December 2, 2020. 125 Letter from Ronald Leighton, President of the Organized Village of Kasaan, Sid Edenshaw, President of the Hydaburg Cooperative Association, and Richard Peterson, President of the Central Council of T lingit and Haida Indian T ribes of Alaska, et al., to Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture, and Vicky Christiansen, Chief of the Forest Service, October 13, 2020. Hereinafter, Letter from Tribal Cooperators, 2020. 126 Letter from Tribal Cooperators, 2020. 127 Letter from Tribal Cooperators, 2020. Congressional Research Service 17 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest Multiple tribal governments, including those without cooperator status, also have al eged the USDA disregarded their input, ignored tribes’ requests for government-to-government consultation, and otherwise failed to meaningfully engage with them during the rulemaking process.128 In July of 2020, 11 tribes petitioned the USDA for a new rule concerning management of ancestral lands in the Tongass.129 In the petition, the tribes specified that their “comments, input, and traditional knowledge [had] been repeatedly disregarded and ignored” in past attempts to work collaboratively with the USDA regarding the management of traditional Alaska Native lands, including the Tongass. The tribes also specified that the USDA’s failure to address the tribes’ concerns during the Alaska roadless rulemaking process amounted to the “collective disenfranchisement” of their sovereign tribal governments.130 In the petition, the tribes requested the USDA to commence a process to create a rule to protect traditional and customary uses and areas of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian peoples. The tribes requested the development of a methodology to identify sites of critical importance to their customary use and the implementation of forest-wide conservation measures to protect these uses. The tribes also requested that the USDA engage in a “more robust and legitimate” government-to-government consultation process with the tribes regarding the Tongass. Tribes requested consultation under the principle of mutual concurrence, defined in FS policy as meaning the tribes and the FS mutual y agree consultation is taking place, to address their concerns about the “inadequate” consultation process during the Alaska roadless rulemaking.131 The petition is pending as of the date of publication of this report. Options for Congress Congress has already engaged in the FS Alaska roadless rulemaking process through various means, such as hearings, correspondence with the USDA, and others.132 If desired, options for congressional action regarding roadless areas in Alaska are broad and varied, depending on what aspect of Alaska roadless area management Congress wishes to address. Some of these options are detailed below. Alternatively, Congress may decide that action related to the newly issued rule is not desirable at this time. For example, Congress may elect to observe FS implementation of the rule and its effect on related lands and resources. Congress also may wish to see how chal enges to the rule are resolved in court. 128 For example, see Anna V. Smith, “Eleven Alaska Native tribes offer new way forward on managing the T ongass,” High Country News, October 1, 2020 and USDA Letter 2020. 129 Letter from Organized Village of Kasaan, Organized Village of Kake, and Klawock Cooperative Association, et al., to Department of Agriculture, July 21, 2020. 130 Letter from Organized Village of Kasaan, Organized Village of Kake, and Klawock Cooperative Association, et al., to Department of Agriculture, July 21, 2020. 131 Forest Service Handbook 1509.13, Forest Service Manual 1563.3. 132 See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and See, for example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, Investigations, Roads to Ruin: Exam ining the Im pacts of Rem oving National Forest Roadless Protections, T estimony , T estimony
of James Furnish, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019, and Letter from the Honorable Debbie Stabenow, of James Furnish, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019, and Letter from the Honorable Debbie Stabenow,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and the Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and the Honorable Raul Grijalva,
Charman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, to Phillis K. Fong, Charman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, to Phillis K. Fong, InspectorInspec tor General, U.S. General, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, November 18, 2018. Department of Agriculture, November 18, 2018.
106 Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, 804(2). For more information on the Congressional Review Act, see CRS
In Focus IF10023, The Congressional Review Act (CRA), by Maeve P. Carey and Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule

Legislative Action
Congress could consider legislation to address Alaska roadless area management, taking a variety
Congressional Research Service 18 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest Oversight Congress might broadly use its oversight powers to review FS activities, such as the FS’s rulemaking process and/or its administration of former IRAs. Such approaches might include directing the FS to inventory or report on former IRA conditions or uses, the exemption’s impact to specified resources or economic sectors, or other aspects of former IRA management. Similarly, Congress may wish to engage in oversight activities related to the FS rulemaking process, such as overseeing the FS’s cooperation with the State of Alaska or with Alaska Native tribal governments. Respond to Newly Issued Forest Service Roadless Regulations In the case of newly issued regulations, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) authorizes Congress to review and revoke regulations.133 The CRA is available to Congress within a specified time frame after a rule is finalized and transmitted to Congress. As of the date of publication of this report, it is unclear when the final rule was transmitted to Congress. Until that date of transmittal is established, the applicability of the CRA to the Tongass roadless exemption is an unresolved question. Legislative Action Regarding Tongass Roadless Area Designation and Management Congress could consider legislation to address Tongass roadless area management, taking a variety of approaches:of approaches:
  Legislation That Refers to the FS’s Roadless Rules. For example, such . For example, such
legislation could codify a rule into law, codify a rule and amend its provisions, or legislation could codify a rule into law, codify a rule and amend its provisions, or
exempt certain parts of the NFS from a rule.exempt certain parts of the NFS from a rule.107134 Such actions could supersede or Such actions could supersede or
complement the complement the FS’s proposed ruleAlaska roadless exemption or other FS Roadless Rules that are in effect. .
  Legislation That Specifies Roadless Area Management ProvisionsManagement Provisions for Former IRAs. For . For
example, Congress could specify a manner and/or degree of state example, Congress could specify a manner and/or degree of state or tribal participation or participation or
direction regarding direction regarding Alaska roadless area management and designationmanagement of former IRAs, specify , specify
prohibited or permitted management actions in prohibited or permitted management actions in Alaskaformer IRAs, or take other IRAs, or take other
actions.actions.108135 Congress also could specify how aspects of the Tongass’s timber program, such as timber export and appraisal, are to be conducted in former IRAs.
  Legislation That Congressionally Designates Former IRAs. For example, For example, Congress
Congress could designate could designate Alaskaformer IRAs under other federal land designations, 133 Congressional Review Act, T itle II, Subtitle E, P.L. 104-121, 5 U.S.C. §§601 et seq. For more information on the Congressional Review Act, see CRS In Focus IF10023, The Congressional Review Act (CRA), by Maeve P. Carey and Christopher M. Davis. 134 IRAs under other federal land designations, such as
national monuments or wilderness.109 Alternately, Congress could designate
Alaska IRAs for multiple-use management. Such designations would supersede
FS rulemaking.
 Legislation That Addresses Other Issues. Such issues could include funding for
activities in Alaska IRAs, for example.




Author Information

Anne A. Riddle

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy


107 For example, see S. 1311, Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, and H.R. 2491, Roadless Area Conservation For example, see S. 1311, Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, and H.R. 2491, Roadless Area Conservation
Act of 2019, Act of 2019, which would codify certain FS from the 116th Congress, which would have codified certain FS roadless regulations into law;roadless regulations into law; H.Amdt. 598 to H.R. 2 from the 115th H.Amdt. 598 to H.R. 2 from the 115th
Congress, whichCongress, which would have exempted a state from FSwould have exempted a state from FS roadless roadless regulations; or S. 193 from the 114th Congress, whichregulations; or S. 193 from the 114th Congress, which
would have exempted certain areas from FSwould have exempted certain areas from FS roadless regulations.roadless regulations.
108 135 For example, see H.R. 7090, Act to Save America’s Forests, from the 110th Congress. Congressional Research Service 19 The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest  such as national monuments or wilderness.136 Such designations would supersede FS rulemaking.  Legislation That Addresses Other Issues. For example, Congress could address funding for activities in former IRAs. Author Information Anne A. Riddle Analyst in Natural Resources Policy For example, see H.R. 7090, Act to Save America’s Forests, from the 110th Congress.
109 According to FS, Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 2016, Congress had designated
approximately 7.2 million acres of the T ongass under various federal land designations by 2016. T hese designations
include wilderness, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, and designations established under P.L. 101-626 §201
and P.L. 113-291 §3002. T he provisions of each statutory designation differ from the provisions of the 2001 Rule. T he
acres of these designations may overlap (e.g., Congress may designate a wild and scenic river within a national
monument); it is unclear to what degree these designations may overlap with IRAs. Congress may have since
designated additional T ongass lands. For a description of federal land designations, see CRS Report R45340, Federal
Land Designations: A Brief Guide, coordinated by Laura B. Comay. Pursuant to these and any other applicable
statutory authorities or requirements, the T ongass land and resource management plan specifies desired resource
conditions for units of the T ongass and informs decisions on how those uses will be balanced.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

The Proposed Alaska Roadless Rule



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

136 According to FS, Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan , 2016, Congress had designated approximately 7.2 million acres of the T ongass under various federal land designations by 2016. T hese designations include wilderness, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, and designations established under P.L. 101-626 §201 and P.L. 113-291 §3002. T he provisions of each statutory designation differ from the provisions of the 2001 Rule. T he acres of these designations may overlap (e.g., Congress may designate a wild and scenic river within a national monument); it is unclear to what degree these designations may overlap with IRAs. Congress may have since designated additional T ongass lands. For a description of federal land designations, see CRS Report R45340, Federal Land Designations: A Brief Guide, coordinated by Laura B. Comay. Pursuant to these and any other applicable statutory authorities or requirements, the T ongass land and resource management plan specifies desired resource conditions for units of the T ongass and informs decisions on how those uses will be balanced. Congressional Research Service R46505 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED 20 Congressional Research Service
R46505 · VERSION 1 · NEW
18

---