Body
Southeast Alaska residents have submitted more than 300 comments to the U.S. Forest Service on a revised management direction for the Tongass National Forest, setting up a high-stakes debate over how the forest should be governed for the coming decades. The comments submitted during the preliminary draft phase included requests to better accommodate mining and timber alongside recreation and conservation, as well as calls to protect old-growth forests and wildlife and to slow down what some residents described as a rushed process.
In comments tied to the revised direction, Steve Ball, general manager of the Coeur Alaska Kensington Mine, said the plan should treat the Tongass National Forest as a mining district rather than solely as a timber or conservation reserve. Ball wrote, “The revised Forest Plan should affirm that responsible mineral exploration and development are fully compatible with ecological stewardship, subsistence values, and multiple use when properly planned and regulated.” He also wrote that Roadless Area Conservation Rule prohibitions should not be applied to mining operations.
Other commenters criticized both the direction they said reflected federal policy and the way the Forest Service ran the process, according to the comments reviewed as part of the Forest Service planning outreach. James Clare urged more time, writing, “The rushed plan timeline threatens all other uses and important worthy and cherished treasures, especially every creature on the Tongass, including humans,” and adding, “Please provide more time for plan development, as done in the past.”
Forest Service officials defended the pace of outreach as the agency’s effort to gather input while the planning team refines its approach. Barb Miranda, the deputy forest supervisor for the Tongass National Forest, said the agency is using an accelerated schedule to receive public feedback, telling workshop attendees: “The rushed plan timeline threatens all other uses” was not what Miranda emphasized; instead she said the Forest Service is being open under a quick timeline to receive “as much public input as we can.” She added, “This is the Tongass,” and said, “It is our backyards. It is also a national treasure.”
Miranda compared forest plans to city zoning, saying the plans set overall management direction and guidance and create standards for future projects rather than making site-specific decisions like where a trail should go. She said the Forest Service identified only desired conditions and goals at this stage and that they are not set in stone. She also said that, in the past 45 days, the agency sought feedback on how to refine those goals, with Spruce Root and the Juneau Economic Development Council assisting engagement.
Public comments were accepted after the Forest Service published a notice of intent in the Federal Register, and the comment period for the preliminary draft plan is now closed, the Forest Service said. The Forest Service said it will seek more input during all phases of the forest plan revision, which is set to be finalized in 2028; it said a 90-day comment period will follow the publication of the draft plan and environmental impact statement this fall, and that the draft environmental impact statement is estimated to be published in the Federal Register this August. Miranda also said the last time public engagement took place was in April 2024, when input was gathered from 20 communities for an assessment.
At a Juneau community workshop held last month at the Juneau District Ranger Office, more than 60 people attended and took part in activities including a survey on preliminary directions, maps identifying potential management areas, and 14 “feedback frames.” Miranda said the 2016 plan amendment includes 19 management areas and that the Forest Service is trying to narrow down those areas, adding that the implementation is “very complicated and difficult to implement” in part because the current forest plan has undergone multiple revisions.
Workshop participants described a range of concerns tied to how the Forest Service should manage old growth, subsistence and fish habitat, and how it presents management boundaries to the public. Jordynn Fulmer, a cultural ambassador at the Mendenhall Glacier with the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, said she came to stand against clearcutting and said old growth is vital for protecting salmon streams. In an online comment, the tribe said it had a “significant concern” about inconsistent definitions of old growth across the plan, contrasting tribal definitions of old growth as multi-century integrated cultural-ecological systems with the Forest Service’s use of timber-based age classifications.
Some commenters urged different emphases for the plan’s focus on conservation areas versus resource use, and others questioned how maps and feedback frames helped residents participate. Nate Arrants, executive director of Haines Huts and Trails, said he felt the workshop’s maps did not include areas outside specific management districts and said the “big maps” limited feedback from people who care about the entire Tongass. He also said the feedback-frame statements could leave residents confused about how to provide input and that he hoped the agency would put more time into the “zoning of it” given the plan’s expected 30-year lifespan.
In online comments, Kathy Hansen, executive director of the Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance, argued that the preliminary draft plan did not adequately elevate the protection of fishery resources and habitat, writing that the draft appeared to be “more managing the people’s access to the resource.” Other residents described the management-area designations they said did not match their views of appropriate public land uses; James Taggart wrote objecting to designations around Baranof Island and Kruzof Island he said were marked for commercial use.
As the planning team compiles responses and prepares a range of alternatives for the draft environmental impact statement, the Forest Service said the public will have further opportunities to engage. Michael Downs, Juneau District Forest Ranger, said in an interview that one objective of the outreach is to test whether the proposed management areas “make sense,” adding: “It may be that through the input, the high rec and low rec isn’t something we should do. That’s why we’re doing this, but you have to have a starting point.”