The good news is the forest industry in Southeast Alaska is still alive. Although the industry is a mere shadow of its former self, it is a vital source of jobs in rural and urban communities of the region.
The bad news is the forest industry remains under attack with efforts to lock up virtually every acre and deny it the reliable, longterm timber supply it needs.
In the 1970s, the forest products industry was one of the largest economic sectors in Alaska with 4,600 jobs, mostly spread throughout the Southeast Panhandle. Most commercial logging took place in the Tongass National Forest and on Native corporation land. Large manufacturing facilities, including two major pulp mills in Sitka and Ketchikan, were major anchors of the region’s economy and local tax base.
Today the pulp mills are gone and there is only one mediumsize sawmill remaining in the region, and it’s struggling for its very survival. According to the Alaska Department of Labor, there were only 307 people directly employed in forestry and logging jobs last year. There were an additional 150 wood products and manufacturing jobs.
In the industry’s heyday, loggers could cut up to 520 million board feet (mmbf) each year, which was still well under what the forest could sustain in perpetuity. But the industry went through a major transformation in the 1990s with new land withdrawals and adverse public policy decisions sharply curtailing the timber supply to local mills. A new land management plan reduced the annual harvest ceiling to a maximum of 267 mmbf.
Despite a sharply reduced harvest ceiling and most of the forest closed to logging, environmentalists routinely litigated government timber sales, stalling virtually all offerings. The cumulative impact of government policy, more restrictive land management regimes, ongoing litigation, and a powerful environmental lobby dealt a severe blow to the industry and its lifeblood – a long-term timber supply.
Contrary to public perception outside Alaska, the forest products industry today is not starved for timber because it has consumed the forest. In fact, only seven percent or a little over 400,000 acres of the total productive old-growth timber have been logged over the last 100 years in the Tongass. Only 15 percent of the highest volume stands have been harvested, while about 85 percent of the forest’s largest old-growth remains unharvested.
Today, only four percent of the entire Tongass is available for harvest. Of the forested commercial-grade timber, six percent is available for logging. Yet this is still a lot of timber, which could revive the industry and local communities in Southeast Alaska, but public perception, federal environmental politics, and the economic viability of timber sales continue to stifle potential, according to Owen Graham, Executive Director of the Alaska Forest Association (AFA).
As the 2008 Tongass Land Management Plan was nearing completion, the Forest Service informed AFA it planned to offer about 140 mmbf of timber annually for the following five-year period – well under the new harvest ceiling. Instead, the agency prepared and offered an average of only 22 mmbf annually.
The primary reason is the 2008 plan included too much highcost, low-volume timber and too many costly harvest constraints, said Graham, who explained the agency’s own economic analysis indicated only 18 percent of the old-growth timber available under the plan would support viable, operable timber sales.
“Many of the areas the Forest Service selected for harvest under the 2008 land management plan were steep, high elevation slopes where it costs more than double to log,” Graham said. “In the past the agency would balance high-cost harvest areas with lower-cost areas, and the result would be an economic mix of timber stands. The 2008 plan has insufficient lower-cost areas to balance against the high-cost offerings. As a result, the agency has been challenged in implementing its timber sale program.”
Shortly after the 2008 plan was adopted, the State and the Forest Service began a joint effort to help prepare federal timber sales. That effort stagnated after the Forest Service was directed by the Obama administration to impose its “restoration economy” and limit most logging to young growth timber, even though Tongass second growth is mostly 30 to 40 years from maturity.
“Environmental groups and some in the administration want to replace our industry with a restoration economy,” Graham said. “Their idea is to restore ‘impacted watersheds’ and ‘old-growth conditions’ across the forest, even though less than ten percent of the commercial forestland has ever been harvested. Today there is little that needs restoring. The Forest Service did a good job managing the forest in past years.”
Graham noted fish populations in the region have increased over the past 50 years. Wildlife populations are stable or increasing, particularly in the logged areas. All of the harvested acres have regenerated and second-growth trees are maturing as projected.
After about 80 to 100 years, the maximum growth capacity of second-growth stands is reached and the trees are large enough to be profitably milled into lumber. At maturity, a stand of trees will have four to five times more merchantable volume as it does now – just 30 years after forest regeneration of the second growth started.
“Forcing a premature transition to young-growth will reduce the future timber yields and will force closure of mills because most of the young growth is currently too small to be profitable,” Graham said. “In addition, there are not yet enough acres of young growth to sustain our industry even when the trees are finally mature.”
Graham said the industry needs to continue harvesting old-growth until it has sufficient acreage converted to young-growth and those trees have had time to mature. He said the supply of second growth in any significant quantities is at least 20 years out. “We need to let the young trees grow,” he said. “The early transition to young-growth harvesting is a bad idea. Commercially sized second-growth timber is not available.”
Graham warned that the development of a second growth industry in Southeast Alaska would require total retooling of existing sawmills or building of new mills. He said investors are not willing to trust government assurances that it will be able to deliver sustainable supplies of second-growth timber.
Why? Because almost 50 percent of the Tongass second growth is tied up in roadless and other administrative withdrawals. And most timber tied up in these withdrawals is the oldest second growth available.
The industry continues to struggle due primarily to the uncertain timber supply. It has been so long since the industry had a reliable long-term timber supply that most of its skilled workers and facilities are gone and the economy of scale has grown so small that it is hard for the industry to be competitive.
Graham, however, said the gloomy situation the industry finds itself in today can be turned around. “When we had longer-term timber sale agreements in the 1950s, industry was able to make enormous manufacturing investments and quickly ramp up its operations,” Graham pointed out. “All of those investments were made by private industry without government funding. That can happen again. All we need is an adequate supply of suitable timber.”
With the Tongass Land Management Plan set to undergo significant revision beginning this winter, Graham said “this will be the time to ensure that the second growth forests are returned to the commercial forest timber base and that a reliable supply of old growth is set aside for harvest until second growth reaches maturity.”
Return to newsletter headlines
