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

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

The Alaska Roadless Rule: 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)

identified administratively by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest
Service (FS). IRAs are managed according to regulations, known as roadless rules, that

limit timber harvesting, road construction, and road reconstruction within designated areas.
IRA management in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest has generated particular controversy. The Tongass is the
nation’s largest national forest and is a regional y significant setting for economic sectors such as forestry,
commercial fishing, and tourism. It is also a unique ecological resource, containing large, undeveloped tracts of
rare ecosystems, such as temperate rainforest. Thus, the impacts to NFS lands and resources and to adjacent
communities from Tongass roadless area management has generated congressional interest.
In January 2018, the State of Alaska requested that the USDA consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt
the Tongass from the then-applicable roadless rule, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (hereinafter, the 2001
Rule). The FS agreed to undertake this rulemaking and published the 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 to the Tongass National Forest. 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 the forest.
The practical impact of the rule’s provisions is difficult to predict, due to various factors. Timber harvesting (and
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 legal and management factors, 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 rule wil affect various Tongass uses and values positively (e.g.,
the timber industry, 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 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 and 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 questioned 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 has engaged with
both issues through oversight actions.
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 11 link to page 11 link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 5 link to page 23 The 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 ...................................................................................... 8
The Final Alaska Roadless Rule: The Tongass Roadless Exemption ........................................ 8
Timber Harvesting ................................................................................................... 10
Road Construction and Reconstruction........................................................................ 12
Overal Impacts of the Exemption .............................................................................. 13
Issues for Congress ....................................................................................................... 14
Impacts to Lands, Resources, and Communities: Stakeholder Views................................ 14
Uses of Federal Funding During the Rulemaking Process .............................................. 16
Tribal Consultation .................................................................................................. 17
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................... 18
Oversight ............................................................................................................... 19
Respond to Newly Issued Forest Service Roadless Regulations ...................................... 19
Legislative Action Regarding Tongass Roadless Area Designation and Management.......... 19

Figures
Figure 1. The Tongass National Forest................................................................................ 2

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 20

Congressional Research Service

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

Introduction
Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are areas of the National Forest System (NFS) identified
administratively by the Forest Service (FS) and managed according to regulations, known as
roadless rules, that limit timber harvesting, road construction, and road reconstruction.1 For
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.
In 2001, the FS issued the first roadless rule, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (hereinafter,
the 2001 Rule), which defined the modern-day IRAs and set a nationwide framework for 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
IRAs in Alaska’s National Forests, the Tongass and the Chugach, spurring interest in how such a
rulemaking may affect associated NFS lands and 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 regional economy. The Tongass also is a unique
ecological resource, because it contains large, undeveloped tracts of rare ecosystems, such as
temperate rainforest. Thus, the scale of the rule, and its potential impacts to Tongass lands and
resources and to adjacent communities, has generated stakeholder interest.

1 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 Land Areas
Report (LAR), 2019.
3 CRS calculation from inventoried roadless area (IRA) data, FS Legislative Affairs Office, March 20, 2020; U.S. state
land area data, Oswalt et al., Forest Resources; and USDA, FS, “ National Forest System Land Area” in Land Areas
Report (LAR), 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
1

The Alaska Roadless Rule: Eliminating IRAs in the Tongass National Forest

Figure 1. The Tongass National Forest

Sources: Congressional Research Service, from Forest Service (FS), FS Geodata Clearinghouse, “Roadless
Areas: 2001, Idaho, and Colorado Rules Combined,” and U.S. Geological Survey, Protected Areas Database of
the United States.
Congress has shown continuing concern about policy for roadless area management, including
roadless area management specific to Alaska, through legislative and oversight activities.
Congressional interest in Alaska roadless area management also has generated policy proposals
applicable to FS roadless areas nationwide.
This report provides an overview of the FS’s rule and contextual information regarding the
affected NFS lands and resources. The report provides information on the national forests in
Alaska, particularly the Tongass National Forest, which is the focus of the final rule and
associated stakeholder attention. The report also describes the rule’s contents and its potential
impacts. The report concludes with a discussion of issues for potential congressional
consideration related to the rule and the FS’s rulemaking process.
National Forests in Alaska
Of the two national forests in 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
System Land Area” in Land Areas Report (LAR), 2019; 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, controversy regarding IRAs in
Alaska has focused on the Tongass. For example, the proposed Alaska roadless rule was focused
largely on the Tongass, with minor provisions related to the Chugach, 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
area.7 It is a regional y significant setting for resource-based economic sectors such as forestry,
commercial fishing, and tourism. The Tongass also contains rare wildlife habitats, ecosystems,
and visual characteristics of national and international significance.8 These factors shape the
debate surrounding the roadless rule’s impacts on the Tongass.
In 2018, more than 29% of total employment in southeast Alaska was in forestry, commercial
fishing, tourism, and mining and mineral development, with the visitor and seafood industries
accounting for 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
on the Tongass for subsistence (such as hunting and fishing), cultural and sacred sites, and other
uses.
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 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 which are found only in that region.12 In addition, the
Tongass sequesters large quantities of carbon and plays other important roles in the global carbon
cycle.13

5 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. 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-867b,
September 2020, pp. ES-3. Hereinafter cited as FEIS 2020.
7 FS, “About the Alaska Region,” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r10/about-region.
8 FEIS 2020, “Background,” “Key Issue 1-Roadless Area Conservation,” and others.
9 FEIS 2020, T able 3.2-1. T he visitor industry accounts for approximately 62% of resource-based employment,
followed by seafood (28%), mining and mineral development (7%), and 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
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 communities 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
Ecosystems,” Ecosphere, vol. 2, no. 11 (2011), pp.1-35. T his forest type is also referred to as coastal temperate and
covers less than 0.5% of the Earth’s land area.
12 FS, Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan: Final Environmental Impact Statement, R10-MB-603a
(Washington, DC: January 2008), p. 3-9.
13 FEIS 2020, “Climate and Carbon,” and Heather Keith, Brendan Mackey, and David Lindenmeyer, “Re-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 reconstruction in IRAs.
These issues are intertwined: the Tongass’s road transportation system is mostly in support of
timber harvesting.14 Thus, debate surrounding the roadless rule in Alaska often has centered on
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
two classifications of forests, old growth and young growth:

Old-growth forest: Usual y, the final stage of forest development. Old growth can be defined many ways,
often related to forest characteristics such as tree size, age, and number; canopy conditions; dead and down
trees; debris; and others.

Young-growth forest: A relatively young forest that has regenerated after a major disturbance, such as
wildfire or extensive timber harvesting. In the Tongass, forests younger 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 forest is
associated with many of the Tongass’s unique qualities, such as habitat for sensitive or endemic species, and
harvesting old-growth timber is increasingly controversial.
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-
timber industries deemed to be of importance to the Tongass region’s economy, such as recreation and fisheries.
In 2013, the Secretary further directed 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
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
shift.
Under the 2016 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, 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 timber becomes more
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.
Sources: USDA, FS, Final Environmental Impact Statement: Rulemaking for Alaska Roadless Areas, R10-MB-867b,
September 2020; Letter from 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, Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, 2013; USDA, FS, Tongass National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan, R10-MB-769j, December 2016; USDA, FS, Tongass National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, R10-MB-769e,f, December 2016.
Timber harvesting activity in the Tongass, as in the NFS general y, has declined from its peak
levels in the 1970s and 1980s.15 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
by the Tongass fel from 199 in 2003 to 62 in 2018.17 During this period, total Tongass-related

R46313, U.S. Forest Carbon Data: In Brief, by Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle.
14 FEIS 2020, p. 3-163.
15 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, Tongass National Forest. According
to GAO, timber harvests from the T ongass peaked at an annual average of approximately 494 million board 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 supported about 42% of total timber industry employment in southeast
Alaska, on average.18 In FY2018, approximately 19.9 mil ion board feet (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,
most timber harvested in southeast Alaska is sent to other states and exported international y.21
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 cannot offer timber for sale unless the sale is positively appraised
(sometimes referred to as appraising positive)—that is, the estimated value of the timber exceeds
the cost of conducting the harvest.23 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 others—affect whether sales appraise positive and can be offered.24
Although international and interstate export of unprocessed timber from Alaska NFS lands
requires approval by the FS, a policy al owing specified interstate and international exports is in
place for timber harvested from the Tongass, which affects the number of positively appraised
sales.25 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 Alaska27
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

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, Jobs and Incom e: Economic Contributions at a Glance in 2016, Tongass
National Forest, the FS estimates the T ongass “ forest products” industry directly supported 320 timber jobs in 2016,
compared with total T ongass-related timber employment of 151 jobs in FEIS 2020. T his source does not estimate
employment over time. It is unclear whether these sources measure equivalent employment categories.
18 CRS, from FEIS 2020, p. 3-34.
19 Forest Service, “Cut and Sold Reports,” Region 10, FY2018 4 th Quarter cumulative report, September 2019.
20 FEIS 2020, p. H-29.
21 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 Alexan der, Tim ber
Dem and. In the context of the T ongass, export can refer to shipping to other areas of the United States or
internationally.
22 P.L. 101-626.
23 P.L. 116-94 §436. T he requirement to offer positively appraised sales is generally specified in annual Interior
appropriations bills.
24 Daniels, Paruszkiewicz, and Alexander, Timber Demand.
25 36 C.F.R. §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
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
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
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
that appraise positive.
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 Preservation System (NWPS) and directing the FS to
inventory other undeveloped areas throughout the NFS for possible NWPS inclusion.29 The FS
conducted two inventories of NFS lands (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation [RARE] I and II)
under this authority, and both inventories were chal enged in court. Legal decisions related to the
inventories constrained FS management actions in the relevant areas.30
In part due to these issues with the inventories, in the 1980s, Congress simultaneously designated
thousands of RARE I and II acres as wilderness and specified that remaining RARE I and II acres
were to be managed for multiple use.31 Management direction for the remaining RARE I and II
areas was determined at the national forest level, through individual FS land and resource
management plans (forest plans).32
The Roadless Rule
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 (the 2001
Rule).33 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 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 L -20,
National Forest Manual, July 12, 1929, as amended August 7, 1930, and FS, “ Lands,” 1 Federal Register 1100, August
15, 1936. In 1939, the FS issued the so-called U regulations, which authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to designate
wilderness and the Chief of the Forest Service to designate wild areas. Roads, motorized transport, commercial timber
harvesting, and occupancy under special use permits were prohibited in both wilderness and wild areas. FS, “ Land
Use,” 4 Federal Register 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. Dennis Roth, “T he
National Forests and the Campaign for Wilderness Legislation,” Journal of Forest History, vol. 28, no. 3 (1984).
29 P.L. 88-577.
30 See, for example, Parker v. United States, 448 F.2d 793 (10th Cir. 1971), California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.
1982. For more information on these proceedings, see CRS Report R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas
(IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann.
31 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
resource management plan (forest plan) 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
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
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.3, hereinafter cited as 2001 Rule FEIS.
33 FS, “Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation,” 66 Federal Register 3244, January 12, 2001. Hereinafter cited as
2001 Rule. T he 2001 Rule has not been classified to the Code of Federal Regulations.
Congressional 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
these issues might increase cumulative loss of roadless area characteristics
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
long.36 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
safety and environmental standards.37 For example, in issuing the 2001 Rule, the
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
control the transportation share of its budget.38
 Costs of Litigation: The FS asserted that controversy over roadless area
management had been a major point of conflict in land management, generating
“costly and time-consuming” litigation.39 The FS specified that issuing a
nationwide policy would reduce local appeals and litigation about activities
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,
through two primary means: (1) the rule’s revocation and replacement with an alternate rule in
2005 by the George W. Bush Administration (2005 Rule) and (2) litigation chal enging both rules.
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.40 Between 2001 and 2011,
federal courts enjoined both the 2001 and the 2005 Rules.41 For a time, it was unclear which rule,
if any, governed FS management of roadless areas. However, in 2011, the 2001 Rule was returned

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”; 2001 Rule FEIS, “Purpose and Need.”
36 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.”
37 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.”
38 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”; 2001 Rule FEIS, “Purpose and Need.”
39 2001 Rule, “Purpose and Need for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule”; 2001 Rule FEIS, “Purpose and Need.”
40 FS, “Special Areas; State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management ,” 70 Federal Register 25654, May
13, 2005, hereinafter cited as 2005 Rule. For a discussion of policy differences between the two rules, see CRS Report
R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann, or Robert Glicksman,
“T raveling in Opposite Directions: Roadless Area Management Under the Clinton and Bush Administrations,”
Environm ental Law, vol. 34, no. 1143 (2004), pp. 1143-1208.
41 See, for example, Wyoming v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1197 , 1231 (D. Wyo. 2003);
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, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by
Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann.
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
initial y proposing otherwise, the FS decided the 2001 Rule would apply immediately to Alaska,
with some limited exceptions.44 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
validity of the 2001 Rule.45
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
be managed in accordance with the forest plan unless changed through a state-specific
rulemaking.46 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.47 The
court thus vacated the exemption and reinstated the applicability of the 2001 Rule to the
Tongass.48 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 2015.49 The
2001 Rule applied 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)
consider creation of a state-specific rule to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the 2001
Rule.50 The FS previously issued state-specific roadless rules for two states in response to their
petitions under the 2005 Rule.51 The FS subsequently published a notice of intent on August 30,

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.”
45 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
able to promulgate a planned Alaska-wide roadless rule. Id. at 75138.
462005 Rule, “Summary of Public Comments and the Departments’ Responses.”
47 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.
48 Id. at 976-77.
49 Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 795 F.3d 956, 970 (9 th Cir. 2015).
50 Alaska: Letter from Andrew T . Mack, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, to Sonny Perdue,
Secretary of Agriculture, January 19, 2018.
51 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

Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), 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.
52 FS, “Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska,” 83 Federal Register 44252, August 30,
2018.
53 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,” 85 Federal Register
68688, October 29, 2020. Hereinafter referred to as 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
such impacts.
Timber Harvesting
By removing the 2001 Rule’s applicability to the Tongass, the final rule exempts the Tongass
from the 2001 Rule’s provisions regarding timber harvesting, which prohibit timber harvesting in
IRAs except under specified circumstances.62 Under the exemption, an additional 168,000 acres
of old-growth timber and 20,000 acres of young-growth timber became suitable for timber
production.63 These areas were previously designated as unsuitable for timber production due to
designation as IRAs under the 2001 Rule. Prior to the exemption, about 227,000 acres of old-
growth timber and 334,000 acres of young-growth timber were suitable for timber production;
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, Forest Service
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann.
63 FEIS 2020, p. 2-16, T able 2-9.
64 FEIS 2020, p. ES-13 and p. 2-20.
65 CRS, calculation from FEIS 2020, T able 3.2-8, p. 3-52. According to this table, approximately 59% of suitable old
growth would be added in areas “more distant from roads.” T he meaning of “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 “Special Considerations for Tongass Roads and Timber”), these factors
affect whether timber sales appraise positive and can be offered.67 The factors particularly
influenced by global market conditions (e.g., timber prices, trade) cannot be easily predicted.
Thus, the FS’s expected effects of the rule are sensitive to assumptions regarding these factors.
The FS asserts that overal harvest levels are not expected to vary significantly under the
exemption, compared with those planned under the current Tongass forest plan.68 The FS further
states that the main effect of the exemption wil be to increase flexibility in sale development,
spreading out the same general harvest level over increased acreage and improving the FS’s
ability to make positively appraised sales that meet the timber industry’s needs.69 The FS expects
the relative amount of old-growth and young-growth timber harvested under the 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.71
The exemption’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
counter the FS’s conclusions. The FS’s predicted effects rely on assumptions regarding timber
market forces and adherence to timber provisions in the 2016 Tongass forest plan amendment,
such as projected timber sale levels and the young-growth transition.72 These factors are not
binding and therefore do not ensure harvest levels wil remain the same (e.g., if trade or timber
price conditions were different than predicted or if forest planning objectives changed).
Some have expressed concern that timber harvesting could be higher than predicted, particularly
harvesting of old-growth timber, with associated impacts to lands and resources.73 Although the
FS predicts little additional old-growth harvest, most of the lands that became 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 T ongass both annually and for each forest planning cycle ( P.L. 101-626). Federal law 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
laws related to the federal timber export ban, CRS Congressional Distribution Memor andum CD1302059, History of
Export Restrictions of Federal Logs from the Western Continental United States, by Katie Hoover, is available to
congressional clients upon request. As 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 younger timber stands, as part of a
transition toward greater support for other regionally important industries, such as fisheries 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, Keeping the Roadless Rule in AK, November 5, 2019.
74 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, which
prohibit road construction and reconstruction in IRAs except in specified circumstances.76 The
impacts estimated by the FS of any new road construction or reconstruction due to the final rule
are based on a 2016 baseline, when the Tongass had 5,100 miles of roads, including both forest
transportation system roads and other roads.77 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
constructed or reconstructed over decommissioned roadbeds.78
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
to regional transportation purposes (although roads primarily for regional transportation do pass
through the Tongass).79 The FS specifies that more road miles under the exemption are expected
because the exemption makes areas suitable for timber harvest in relatively more remote areas,
which would require more road construction to reach.80 The amount of additional 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 harvesting levels are
higher than anticipated, more additional road miles than expected may be added. Uncertainties
surrounding road construction and reconstruction under the exemption may be compounded by
assumptions or uncertainties regarding timber harvesting levels (see “Timber Harvesting”).
Some stakeholders have expressed concern that road construction may increase, with paral el
fiscal and environmental impacts.81 One original purpose of the 2001 Rule was to control costs
associated with maintaining the existing NFS road network.82 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 For additional information on road construction and reconstruction provisions in the 2001 Rule, see CRS Report
R46504, Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), by Anne A. Riddle and Adam Vann.
77 FEIS 2020, p. 3-166.
78 FEIS 2020, p. 3-166. 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
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,
some such roads were authorized through P.L. 109-59, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient T ransportation Equity
Act.
79 FEIS 2020, p. 3-163.
80 FEIS 2020, p. 3-166.
81 For example, see 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, T estimony
of Autumn Hanna, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., November 13, 2019, or Mark Kaelke, “ Fish and Fiscal Responsibility: Let’s
Protect the Roadless Rule,” Trout Unlim ited, December 10, 2019.
82 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

hazards and adverse effects to fish, water quality, and wildlife.84 However, the likelihood of future
funding shortfal s is difficult 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
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 adverse effect on overal protection of
roadless area characteristics in the Tongass.86 The FS anticipates the exemption wil have a smal
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
renewable energy projects), no impact on others (e.g., the fisheries industry and development of
locatable minerals), and a smal adverse effect on the visitor industry.87 The FS predicts effects on
ecosystems and wildlife general y wil be similar to predicted effects under current management,
with minimal increases in road density and young-growth timber harvesting in special habitats.88
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 (see “Timber
Harvesting” and “Road Construction and Reconstruction”). For example, the FS specifies 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 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
impacts to water quality and quantity, soils, and essential fish habitat would be assessed for
individual projects.90 Therefore, the expected overal impact to these Tongass lands and resources
under the exemption 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,
and old-growth mosaic habitats.
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
13

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
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,” Anchorage Daily News, November 6,
2019.
97 For example, see Patrick Lavin, “ Protecting Wildlife in America’s Rainforest ,” Defenders of Wildlife (blog), October
4, 2018, and Bobby Magill, “‘Hail Mary Pass’ in Alaska’s T ongass Forest Sets Up Carbon Clash,” Bloomberg Law,
December 9, 2019.
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:
 maintaining the Alaska Roadless Rule’s current provisions and applicability (i.e.,
continuing to exempt the Tongass from the 2001 Rule);
 maintaining the general framework of the Alaska Roadless Rule but altering its
provisions or applicability;
 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 advocate for broadening its prohibitions or applicability or applying other resource
protections to the Tongass. Proponents often seek to maintain or enhance resource protections for
the Tongass.101 Some groups may assert that the 2001 Rule assists in protecting resource
conditions that support economical y significant sectors.102 Some also may contend that lifting the
2001 Rule would not significantly help the Alaska timber industry.103 Some groups may assert
that timber harvesting in the Tongass is an inefficient use of federal resources.104
Proponents of the exemption may seek to maintain its current provisions or to increase access to
certain Tongass lands and resources. Those favoring this position often seek to ensure former
IRAs are open to various resource uses.105 Such groups may contend the 2001 Rule negatively
affected rural economic prosperity, with particularly sustained and detrimental impacts to the
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, Tongass National Forest Plan Threatens Wildlife, Economy, and More, Pew Charitable
T rusts, December 10, 2019.
102 For example, see Laine Welch, “Some Southeast Alaska Fishermen Speak Out Against Push to Exempt T ongass
from Roadless Rule,” Anchorage Daily News, November 6, 2019, and Adelyn Baxter, “T ourism Advocates Say
Proposed Roadless Rule Exemption T hreatens Industry’s Growth,” Alaska Public Media KT 00-Juneau, October 19,
2019.
103 For example, see 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, T estimony
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).
104 For example, see T axpayers for Common Sense, Pain in the Tongass—The Sequel, November 15, 2019.
105 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 Forestry (Alaska DOF) in its
role as a cooperating agency in the rulemaking process, 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), a trade group, to
provide industry perspective on the economic viability of timber harvesting in the Tongass.109 As
of September 2019, the Alaska DOF had awarded $200,000 of FS grant funding to the AFA for
use in support of the rulemaking process.110
After the FS awarded grant funding to Alaska DOF, some questioned whether the awarded
funding could properly be used for rulemaking activities.111 Some al eged that awarding this
funding to the State of Alaska, which requested the rulemaking, or to the AFA, represented a
conflict of interest, though others have stated the uses of grant funds 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 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.
109 Memorandum of Understanding Between United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and Alaska
Forest Association, FS Agreement No. 17-MU-11100500-012, March 2017.
110 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 Cooperative Agreem ent Between
Division of Forestry, DNR, State of Alaska Departm ent of Natural Resources and Alaska Forest Association and dated
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,
2019, hereinafter cited as Jenkins, “Important Decision on the T ongass.” T he agreements were for two purposes: (1) to
provide estimates of roadless acreage, timber volume in roadless areas, and economically viable timber in roadless
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.
111 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
Investigations, Roads to Ruin: Exam ining the Im pacts of Rem oving National Forest Roadless Protections, T estimony
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,
Charman, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, to Phillis K. Fong, Inspec tor General, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, November 18, 2018.
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:
 Legislation That Refers to the FS’s Roadless Rules. For example, such
legislation could codify a rule into law, codify a rule and amend its provisions, or
exempt certain parts of the NFS from a rule.134 Such actions could supersede or
complement the Alaska roadless exemption or other FS Roadless Rules that are
in effect.
 Legislation That Specifies Management Provisions for Former IRAs. For
example, Congress could specify a manner and/or degree of state or tribal
participation or direction regarding management of former IRAs, specify
prohibited or permitted management actions in former IRAs, or take other
actions.135 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,
Congress could designate former 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 For example, see S. 1311, Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2019, and H.R. 2491, Roadless Area Conservation
Act of 2019, from the 116th Congress, which would have codified certain FS roadless regulations into law; H.Amdt.
598 to H.R. 2 from the 115th Congress, which would have exempted a state from FS roadless regulations; or S. 193
from the 114th Congress, which would have exempted certain areas from FS roadless regulations.
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

Disclaimer
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
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
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
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
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