U.S. Departmentof Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific NorthwestResearch Station

MiscellaneousPublicationApril 1999

Science Matters:Information for Managing the Tongass National Forest

Kent R. JulinandCharles G.Shaw III

AUTHORS

KENT R. JULIN was the research forest ecologist for the Tongass Land Management Planning Team andis now forester for the County of Marin, P.O. Box 518, Woodacre, CA 94973-0518. CHARLES G. (Terry)SHAW III was the science manager for the Tongass Land Management Planning Team and is now theTongass Issues Coordinator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A, Juneau, AK 99801-8545.This is not a NEPA decision document.

Science Matters:Information for Managing the Tongass National Forest

An overview of the scientific information used in preparing the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan

Kent R. Julin and Charles G. Shaw III

Published by:U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, OregonMiscellaneous Publication

April 1999

AbstractJulin, Kent R.; Shaw, Charles G., III. 1999. Science matters:

Information for managing the Tongass National Forest.Misc. Publ. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.28 p.

A team of research scientists was assembled to help Federalland use planners prepare a plan to guide management ofthe Tongass National Forest for the next 10 to 15 years.These scientists produced a series of resource and conser-vation assessments on northern goshawk, marbled murrelet,Alexander Archipelago wolf, endemic mammals, brownbear, fish, wind disturbance, old-growth timber volume,debris avalanches, karst topography, timber demand, and thesocioeconomics of southeast Alaska. The research scientistsled expert judgment panels to assess the risks that differentmanagement options posed for various resources andprovided advice on approaches to mitigate potentiallyadverse management effects on specific resources. Withoutmaking any management recommendations or decisions,the scientists also evaluated how the available scientificinformation was applied; risks to resources were acknowl-edged in the final plan.

This paper highlights the engagement of these researchscientists in the planning process and their contributions tomaintaining healthy wildlife and fish populations, under-standing landscape dynamics, and defining socioeconomicconditions related to management of the Tongass NationalForest.

Keywords: National Forest planning, Alaska, TongassNational Forest, expert panels, risk assessment, old growth,natural disturbance, wildlife, fish, socioeconomics.

AcknowledgmentsHeidi Bigler Cole, Stewart Allen, Richard Haynes, BethPendleton, Steve Kessler, Jo Julin, and Larry Hurlock arethanked for their thoughts during the development of thispaper. Sanjey Pyare is thanked for allowing us to use hisphotograph of a flying squirrel, as is Dave Person for theuse of his photograph of an Alexander Archipelago wolf.

Acknowledgments

Abstract

Engaging Science 1

Conservation and Resource Assessments—Developing New Information 2

Expert Panels—Evaluating Management Risks to Resources 2

Sustaining Wildlife and Fish 4

Healthy Bird Populations—Tracking the Pulse of the Forest 4

Mammals of the Temperate Rain Forest—Balancing Competing Uses 7

World-Class Fisheries—Managing Spawning and Rearing Habitat 11

Landscape Dynamics 13

Wind and Decay—Defining Patterns of Blowdown 13

Estimating Timber Volume—Drafting a New Map of the Old Forest 15

Debris Avalanches—Sliding Soil and Plants 16

Weathered Limestone—Protecting Fissures, Sinkholes, and Caverns 17

Socioeconomics 18

How Much Wood is Needed—Anticipating Future Demand 18

People of the Panhandle—Finding an Economic Focal Point 20

Applying Scientific Information 26

Consistency Check—Ensuring the Use of Science 26

What the Future Holds—Addressing Information Needs 27

Conclusion 28

Contents

Contents

The Tongass National Forest is 16.9 million acres of landdistributed across more than 22,000 islands and a narrow stripof mainland in the southeast panhandle of Alaska. Although theTongass is called a forest, it is more like a quilt—a rich patchworkof forested land bordered by muskeg, alpine meadow, rock, water,and ice.

1

After more than a decade of dedicated effort by plannersand scientists, a land and resource management plan toguide future use of the Tongass National Forest was ap-proved in 1997. It is not surprising that the plan took solong to complete, given the size of the Forest, the inherentdiversity and complexity of the landscape, and the numer-ous competing demands for its resources and management.Over the years, the planning process was stalled, restarted,and shaped by many events. These included changingFederal administrations, new laws such as the TongassTimber Reform Act of 1990, proposals to list the AlexanderArchipelago wolf and Queen Charlotte goshawk as feder-ally threatened species, shifts in public views on resourcemanagement of public lands, and enhanced appreciationfor the Forest's world-class karst (weathered limestone)resource.

The deliberate engagement of research scientists in theplanning process proved to be an effective catalyst forcompleting a Forest plan that was considered to be scien-tifically credible, resource sustainable, and legally suffi-cient. During the planning process, the research scientistsfocused their efforts to provide sound information on threecomponents of the Tongass ecosystem:

• Factors that affect maintenance of healthy wildlife andfish populations

• Disturbances that affect resource sustainability

• Socioeconomic conditions as they exist and will changethrough management activities

The publication in your hands is a guide for a journeythrough the Tongass—the biological, physical, and socialelements that define this temperate rain forest. The informa-tion described here was used in development of the landmanagement plan for the Tongass National Forest, but it hasusefulness beyond this application. By adding to our basicunderstanding of this temperate rain forest and the econo-mies with which it interacts, our overall knowledge hasbeen enriched. Other agencies also benefited from theeffort; for example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service andthe Alaska Department of Fish and Game have used theinformation in several of their activities.

Engaging Science

T he role of Pacific Northwest Research Stationscientists in the Tongass National Forest planrevision was to assure that credible, value-

neutral, scientific information was developedindependently without reference to managementdecisions. Scientists provided managers withbaseline information and helped predictconsequences.Thomas J. Mills

Station DirectorPacific NorthwestResearch Station

2

Conservation and Resource Assessments—Developing New InformationPacific Northwest Research Station scientists, with the supportof more than 50 scientists and technical specialists from otherFederal and state agencies, examined existing data andsynthesized it with new information on the following topics:

• Conceptual approaches for maintaining well-distributed,viable wildlife populations

• Life histories and management effects on the northerngoshawk, marbled murrelet, and Alexander Archipelagowolf

• Patterns of natural wind disturbance relative to timberharvest practices

• A system for mapping timber volume levels within theold-growth forest

• Physical factors that control slope stability

• The values and vulnerabilities of karst lands

• Anticipated future demand for wood from the Tongass

• Regional, subregional, and local social and economicconditions

Published assessments cover these topics and can beordered free of charge by their GTR number, which will begiven, from:

Pacific Northwest Research Station, PublicationsP.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890(503) 326-5648 or http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

These assessments provided the foundation of informationnecessary to build a scientifically credible plan. Thisinformation alone, however, was not sufficient to providemanagers with a comprehensive background on issues ofvital importance to management of the Tongass. So theresearch scientists designed a structured process to obtainprofessional opinions about management risks, as de-scribed in the following section.

Expert Panels—EvaluatingManagement Risks to ResourcesDuring development of the Tongass land management plan,forest managers and planners crafted a wide range ofpossible management approaches for the resources withinthe Tongass. In planning vernacular, these approaches arecalled alternatives. To provide decisionmakers and thegeneral public with further information on the relative risksof each alternative for Tongass resources, the researchscientists were asked to evaluate the effects of each alterna-tive considered.

To accomplish this task, a structured format was used.Panels of scientific experts were convened to assistdecisionmakers in interpreting and understanding theavailable technical information and to predict levels of riskfor wildlife and fish, old-growth ecosystems, and localsocioeconomic conditions resulting from the differentmanagement approaches.

These expert panels provided information about:

• The relative risk from each alternative on the continuedpersistence of a species or resource

• Potential socioeconomic effects on communities

• Possible management approaches that could be used toreduce risk to resources and communities

Panelists assessed how each management alternative mightimpact the viability or sustainability of a given resourceafter 100 years of full implementation. The various wildlifepanels, for example, used an array of possible outcomesranging from the maintenance of habitat sufficient tosupport well-distributed and healthy breeding populationsto complete loss of a species’ habitat from the Tongass.

As anticipated, results from these scientist panels oftenshowed marked differences in likely effects among alterna-tives. As such, this information became an integral part of

3

the “effects analysis” section of the environmental impactstatement for the Forest plan. Some examples of informa-tion from these panels appear in the following sections.

These panel reports can be ordered by contacting:

Documents Coordinator, USDA Forest ServiceP.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628(907) 586-8701

For an overview of the panel process, read Use of riskassessment panels during revision of the Tongass Land andResource Management Plan, by Shaw. (To be published inmid-1999, currently referred to as case file 98-369.)

Panels of experts addressed thefollowing species or resource areas:

• Northern goshawk

• Alexander Archipelago wolf

• Brown bear

• Sitka black-tailed deer

• Marbled murrelet

• American marten

• Other locally native mammals

• Old-growth ecosystems

• Fisheries resources

• Socioeconomics

• Subsistence

Map area

ALASKA

4

Biologists are concerned about the long-term health of thegoshawk population in southeast Alaska because of the strongassociation of the goshawk with higher volume old-growth forestsand the timber harvesting that has occurred on both public andprivate lands in its preferred habitat. A panel of goshawk expertssuggested that harvesting individual or small groups of trees fromdispersed areas, extending the clearcutting cycles to beyond 200years, and providing old-growth reserves could reduce the risk togoshawk populations.

Native animals respond to changes in their environment inoften complex and sometimes unpredictable ways. Howhas logging nearly 1 million acres of timber from privateand public lands in southeast Alaska affected the wildlifethat is adapted primarily to natural forest conditions? TheForest Service has explored this question because it ismandated to maintain habitat sufficient to support healthywildlife populations within the Tongass. To meet thisrequirement while allowing other uses of the Forest, anunderstanding of basic biological needs, population trends,and effects—positive and negative—that managementactions can have on the quantity and quality of wildlifehabitat is needed. This understanding is derived from fieldobservations, research, and in the absence of completeknowledge, the professional opinions of knowledgeableexperts. Following are some highlights of the body ofknowledge that we have distilled for several old-growth-associated wildlife species.

Healthy Bird Populations—Tracking the Pulse of the ForestNorthern goshawk—The northern goshawk is anonmigratory bird of prey that inhabits northern andmountain forests throughout much of the Northern Hemi-sphere. Locally, it feeds on Steller’s jay, grouse, variedthrush, woodpecker, and red squirrel. Goshawks nest inthe mid-section of trees where their young are protectedfrom the elements and from becoming prey for hungrygreat horned owls. About 35 active nests have been foundin the Tongass.

Sustaining Wildlife and Fish

5

Since 1991, goshawks fitted with radio transmitters havebeen tracked through the Tongass to improve our under-standing of their habitat preferences and territorial move-ments. This research has demonstrated that goshawksspend nearly 70 percent of their time in moderate- to high-volume old-growth forests. Goshawks avoid sparsely treedforests, alpine areas, and clearcuts where their prey isapparently less abundant. During the breeding season,adult goshawks use about 10,000 acres to gather food fortheir young.

The Queen Charlotte goshawk is a recognized subspeciesof the northern goshawk that inhabits parts of coastalBritish Columbia and southeast Alaska. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service’s recent decision to not list the QueenCharlotte goshawk as endangered was based mainly oninformation presented in the goshawk assessment notedbelow and on management direction prescribed in theForest plan. This direction applied information found inthe assessment by markedly reducing commercial timbercutting within 1,000 feet of beaches and estuaries, alongstreams, and in an established system of old-growthreserves. The Forest plan further restricts timber harvestingon portions of Prince of Wales Island where extensiveareas already have been harvested.

Two reports from the Pacific Northwest Research Stationwill help in understanding issues about the northern gos-hawk:

Conservation assessment for the northern goshawk insoutheast Alaska, by Iverson and others, PNW-GTR-387.

Assessments of wildlife viability, old-growth timber volumeestimates, forested wetlands, and slope stability, by Julin,PNW-GTR-392.

0 10 20 30 40

High- to very high-volume old-growth forest

Moderate-volume old-growth forest

Scrub forest

Low-volume old-growth forest

Nonforest

Clearcut

Mature young-growth forest

Habitat availability where goshawks occur (percent)

Habitat use by goshawks (percent)

Goshawks primarily occupy old-growth forested habitats wheretheir prey and suitable nesting sites are more abundant.

6

Marbled murrelet—Southeast Alaska isthe geographic center of the estimated600,000 marbled murrelets in NorthAmerica. The marbled murrelet rangesfrom central California, where it nestsin coastal redwoods, to the AleutianIslands where it nests on the ground.Throughout most of its range, however,marbled murrelets lay their eggsprimarily on large, moss-coveredbranches in older forests within 20miles of the coast.

Natural predators of adult murreletsinclude the northern goshawk andperegrine falcon; crows are thought tobe important predators of young still inthe nest. Oil spills, fishing nets, andtimber cutting also cause the loss ofmarbled murrelets.

Some ornithologists believe that marbledmurrelet population numbers are dimin-ishing in areas where widespreadlogging has created extensive stands ofyoung forest. The concern over long-term survival of segments of the popula-tion is so great that the marbled murreletis listed by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService as threatened in California,Oregon, and Washington, and the Canadians have expressedconcerns in British Columbia. The marbled murrelet is notlisted as threatened in Alaska. Although marbled murrelet hasno special status in Alaska, some concerned individuals havepondered the possible effects that timber harvesting frompublic and private lands in southeast Alaska have had on thelocal murrelet population. Nobody knows.

Currently there are insufficient census data to either properlyevaluate how many marbled murrelets reside in southeastAlaska or define changes in population numbers over time.

For example, only a handful of nestsites are known in southeast Alaska,although 250,000 or more murreletsare thought to be in the area during theyear. Ongoing murrelet researchaimed at tracking the birds from thesea to the forest and back will help toanswer this question. Meanwhile, theForest plan, using information from thegoshawk scientist panel and theassessment noted below, providedhabitat for old-growth-associatedspecies, such as the marbled murrelet,in wilderness areas, beach and estuarybuffers, and in a system of old-growthreserves and other areas where com-mercial timber harvest is not allowed.

The following papers1 will help inunderstanding issues about themarbled murrelet:

A conservation assessment for themarbled murrelet in southeast Alaska,by DeGange, PNW-GTR-388.

Long-term trend in marbled murreletsin southeast Alaska based on Christmasbird counts, by Hayward and Iverson,Northwest Science 72: 170-179.

The challenge of evaluating population trend for conservationmanagement: marbled murrelets in Alaska, by Hayward andIverson, Northwest Science 72: 315-319.

Marbled murrelets have declined in Alaska, by Piat, North-west Science 72: 310-314.

Marbled murrelets feed on small fish andcrustaceans in salt water and nest in old-growth forests of southeast Alaska.

1 Order the three journal articles from: Pacific Northwest ResearchStation; Forestry Sciences Laboratory; 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A;Juneau, AK 99775-6780.

7

Mammals of the Temperate Rain Forest—Balancing Competing UsesAlexander Archipelago wolf—At least 8,000 years ago,wolves strayed northward into what is now southeastAlaska in pursuit of a favored prey—the Sitka black-taileddeer. Since then, wolf packs have established territoriesencompassing 25,000 to 100,000 acres along the mainlandand larger southern islands of the Tongass. Interestingly,wolves have been unsuccessful in colonizing Admiralty,Baranof, and Chichagof Islands, perhaps owing to the highbrown bear densities and the water barriers. Concernsabout the long-term health of wolves in the Tongass centeraround four principal issues:

1. Deer habitat quality and clearcutting. Considerablescientific evidence indicates that clearcutting of timberin southeast Alaska substantially reduces the quality ofdeer habitat. And as the deer goes, so goes the wolf.Dietary research on deer has shown that the reduced

nutritional quality of forage in clearcuts may contributeto lower reproductive success of deer that feed primarilyin clearcuts. Forage in clearcuts becomes unreachableduring periods of deep snow, and it also is shaded out bythe dense forest canopy that forms within 30 years afterclearcutting. This sparse understory condition can persistfor 150 to 200 years. Clearcutting also fragments theforest and can lead to more hunting of deer by wolveswhen deer congregate in uncut patches of timber duringheavy snow. The Forest plan protects 86 percent of thehighest quality deer winter range within the Tongass inthe 1,000-foot beach buffers, stream buffers, and old-growth reserves.

2. Deer populations. In southeast Alaska, each wolf eats anaverage of 26 deer each year. To meet this need, andgiven hunting by humans and other factors affecting deersurvival, wildlife biologists estimate that 170 to 180 deerper wolf (more than 157,000 total) are needed to main-tain the current estimated balance between wolves anddeer.

Wolves in southeast Alaskaare recognized as a separatesubspecies isolated from wolvesin interior Canada and Alaska bythe Coast Mountains. TheAlexander Archipelago wolftends to be smaller, shorterhaired, and darker than otherwolves.

8

3. Roads and wolf mortality. State of Alaska harvest statis-tics show that more roads in an area lead to significantlygreater mortality for wolves from hunting and trapping.Research from other areas of the United States showsthat wolves do not survive in areas where road densitiesexceed about 1 mile of road for each 640 acres. Inroaded areas, wolf packs are generally found in the leastdensely roaded portions of their home range. The Forestplan established numerous large, relatively unroadedreserves as a result of information from the wolf scientistpanel and the wolf assessment: The Alexander Archi-pelago wolf: a conservation assessment, by Person andothers, PNW-GTR-384.

4. Exploitation of wolves by people. People are responsiblefor a high percentage of wolf mortality. From 1990 to1995, 1,163 wolves were reported as taken by huntersand trappers in southeast Alaska. Hunters currently areallowed to bag five wolves per year; there is no limit fortrappers. Unreported or illegal killing of wolves can besubstantial. Researchers on Prince of Wales Island putradio collars on 17 wolves that subsequently died: 9 (53percent) were legally taken by humans, 5 (29 percent)were illegally killed, and 3 (18 percent) died naturally.Although the Alaska Department of Fish and Gameregulates the legal human harvest of wolves, the ForestService can indirectly affect wolf mortality by limitingnew road construction and regulating allowed uses ofexisting roads.

Wolves depend primarily on Sitka black-tailed deer for food.Long-term negative effects on the quality of deer habitat,particularly those associated with clearcut timber harvesting,concern wildlife biologists.

The decision by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Serviceto not list the AlexanderArchipelago wolf asthreatened or endangeredwas based mainly oninformation presented inthe wolf assessment andon management directionoutlined in the Forestplan.

9

Other locally native mammals—Natural features thatfragment and isolate, such as the island biogeography ofthe Tongass, create conditions where animal populationshave become genetically distinct over the millennia.Currently, 27 genetically distinct subspecies of nativemammals are known within the Forest, some occupyingvarious island clusters and others restricted to single is-lands. The scientist panel of mammal experts suggested thatmeasures such as the following, all adopted in the Forestplan, could be used to reduce the risk to the long-termpersistence of locally native mammals in the Tongass:

• Cease timber harvesting on islands of less than 1,000 acres

• Expand wildlife studies in proposed project areas

• Commit to further research on distributions, populationnumbers, and genetics

The following papers will help in understanding issuesabout mammals in the archipelago (see footnote 1 forordering information):

The land mammal fauna of southeast Alaska, by MacDonaldand Cook, Canadian Field Naturalist 110(4): 571-598.

The mammals of southeast Alaska: a distribution andtaxonomic update, by MacDonald and Cook, University ofAlaska Museum, Fairbanks.

In southeast Alaska, an estimated 900 wolves live in a shiftingbalance with available food as affected by natural and human-induced influences. Wolves occupy the areas shown in black.

The American marten is used as an indicator species forunderstanding how management activities, primarilyclearcutting to harvest timber, affect wildlife speciesliving in low-elevation, old-growth forests. Concernover the type and extent of past timber harvest on bothpublic and private lands in portions of southeast Alaskaand the effects on old-growth habitat, as indicated bythe marten scientist panel, prompted the Forest Serviceto discontinue or limit timber harvest in certain areas ofthe Tongass. In these areas, individual-tree or groupselection harvest will be used instead of clearcutting toretain important habitat features for old-growth-associated species such as the marten.

10

The Prince of Wales flying squirrel occursonly in southeast Alaska.

Both radio-telemetry research on brown bears and a panel ofbear experts indicate that key bear-feeding habitat along salmon-spawning streams extends 500 feet on either side of the streams.Bears need space from other feeding and resting bears and hidingcover from humans.

Water barriers and mountain rangesnaturally fragment animal habitats.Roads and timber-harvest areas furtherfragment the forest. Providing reservesof suitable habitat and maintainingwildlife travel routes among habitatsis one strategy (developed from theavailable information) that is appliedin the Forest plan to promote thecontinued health of wildlifepopulations.

11

World-Class Fisheries—Managing Spawningand Rearing HabitatCommercial fishers catch an average of 160 million poundsof fish annually in southeast Alaska at a value of about$250 million. The industry provides more than 5,000direct jobs. Sport fishers spend about 250,000 days at theirsport every year and create the equivalent of 1,200 directfull-time jobs with annual earnings of $28 million. Inaddition, some 1.2 million pounds of salmon and trout areharvested by southeast Alaskan families for subsistence use.

Protection of stream and lake habitats for fish was identi-fied as a key issue in the Forest plan revision. At thedirection of Congress, guidance for making timber harvestmore compatible with managing aquatic habitats wasdeveloped by more than 50 scientists and managers in theAlaska anadromous fisheries habitat assessment.2 Amongthe recommendations in this assessment were:

• Increase protection for headwater streams

• Enlarge streamside buffers

• Establish measurable objectives for evaluating the qualityof fish habitat

• Apply a systematic procedure for describing ecologicalprocesses in watersheds

• Improve and monitor land management practices thathelp control sediments

The interagency team of fish experts that reviewed ForestService practices for managing fish habitat and the scientistpanel for fisheries stressed the importance of protectingstreams in the upper portions of watersheds. Althoughthese headwater streams often are without fish, they con-tribute sediment and woody debris to habitat downstream. Southeast Alaska has one of the most productive and highly

valued fisheries in the world.2 Anadromous Fisheries Habitat Assessment Team. 1995. Report toCongress: Alaska anadromous fisheries habitat assessment, R10-MB-279.

12

Southeast Alaska supports rich populations of chinook, coho,sockeye (pictured above), pink, and chum salmon.

Based on information in the Alaska anadromous fisheries habitatassessment and the fisheries scientific panel, the Forest plan protectsfish habitat in several ways. These include a multitude of landsbeing withdrawn from commercial timber harvest, establishment ofstreamside buffers and watershed analysis procedures, andreductions in timber harvesting on steep slopes (slopes greater than72 feet vertically for every 100 feet horizontally).

The importance ofsalmon to nativecultures is evidentin the legends,artwork, andfamily crests.Developmentof a rich andcomplex culturehas been tied tothe abundance ofsalmon; the easeof finding foodallowed natives topursue their arts.Tlingit, Haida,and Tsimshian

continue their traditional use of salmon—it iscooked, baked, smoked, and dried.

13

Natural disturbance is a key ecosystem process that driveschange in forested landscapes. Wind topples trees weak-ened by decay, thereby creating growing space for newstands. Landslides transport soil and woody debris fromhillsides into streams and infuse the water with nutrientsand structural features (logs and boulders) that are part ofgood fish habitat. Acidic groundwater carves fissures andunderground caverns in limestone, producing nutrient-richkarst waters and habitat for cave-dwelling animals. Under-standing how these disturbances operate can guide plan-ners in managing forest resources sustainably.

Wind and Decay—Defining Patterns of BlowdownUnlike most of North America, where fires can quicklytransform forested slopes into charred wood, wildfires arerarely kindled in the cool rain forest of southeast Alaska.Here, wind—working in combination with wood-eatingfungi and gravity—replaces fire as the principal naturaldisturbance agent. Storm gales and glacier winds snapweakened trunks and uproot shallow-rooted trees inpredictable patterns.

Wind in the Tongass often topples trees in small patchesaveraging less than one-tenth of an acre and involving gener-ally fewer than 10 trees per patch (small-scale windthrow).These patches, which help to create the natural habitat for thenative plants and animals, are dispersed over the landscapeand typically include less than 25 percent of a given stand oftrees. In contrast, the widespread clearcutting done in thepast did not closely mimic natural blowdown patterns.Clearcut units were considerably larger and occupied a muchgreater proportion of the landscape. Only infrequently areextensive tracts of timber laid down by the wind. During the

1968 Thanksgiving Day storm, for example, a deep low-pressure area created winds up to 100 miles per hour, andmore than 1 billion board feet of timber on over 18,500acres was toppled as a result of that event.

Research has demonstrated that trees most susceptible towind damage grow on south-facing slopes directly exposedto prevailing winds, on hilltops and ridge noses, and alongeast- and west-facing slopes where winds acceleratearound mountain flanks. Forest stands in these wind-vulnerable positions are blown over more frequently than

Landscape Dynamics

Thanksgiving Day 1968 blowdown.

14

those in other areas; the trees that replace them thus arerelatively young compared to much of the surroundingnatural forest. Stands of trees in wind-sheltered areas tendto be larger and older and develop characteristics oftenassociated with old-growth forests.

Recent ecological detective work and advances in computer-modeling technology have broadened our understandingof how wind shapes the Tongass. This new knowledgeenables forest planners to design harvest units so that theirsize and locations can more closely mimic natural open-ings in the forest.

From our deeper understanding of how wind disturbancepatterns operate at small scales (stands) and large scales(islands), managers can mimic natural blowdown patterns—the same disturbance patterns to which plants and animalsof the forest have adapted. Although planners can emulatethe size and distribution of natural blowdowns in forestplanning, they realize that the overall level of disturbanceis nevertheless greater than what is natural and the nutrientrecycling associated with blowdown cannot be duplicated,even in small patch cuttings.

Natural patterns of wind disturbance can be emulated by:

• Harvesting smaller groups of trees in wind-protectedlandscapes

• Locating clearcut units in wind-exposed landscapes wherenatural wind-generated openings are more common

• Reducing the average size of clearcut units

For more information on wind disturbance, see the reportfrom the Pacific Northwest Research Station:

The effects of wind disturbance on temperate rain foreststructure and dynamics of southeast Alaska, by Nowackiand Kramer, PNW-GTR-421.

Although tracts of large-scale windthrow can encompass 1,000acres, they average less than 40 acres each.

This map wasmade with acomputermodel thatusestopography,vegetation,and windexposure topredict thelocations oflarge- andsmall-scalewindthrowevents onKuiu Island,Alaska.

15

Estimating Timber Volume—Drafting aNew Map of the Old ForestOnly about 10 million acres of the 16.9-million-acre Tongass is forested, and these forests aredominated mostly by western hemlock and Sitkaspruce. There are about 400,000 acres of denseyoung stands of trees, most of which began grow-ing after the 1950s when industrial-scale loggingstarted in earnest. There also are expansive mixedstands of younger and older trees that have devel-oped from natural disturbance processes, such aswindthrow and landslides. These various standtypes are scattered across the archipelago in amosaic with other nonforested terrain.

Use of old-growth timber was the pivotal issue inthe Forest plan revision. Land managers sought tobalance the demand for wood products with theprotection of scenery, fish and wildlife habitat, andother values. To help define this balance, manag-ers needed to know how much old-growth timber exists,where it is, and how it is distributed across the landscape.

To meet this need, a new timber map was developed forthe Forest plan. It was based on aerial photographs, soiltype and topographic maps, and a series of tree plotsdistributed across the forest. This map shows the locationand abundance of previously unharvested stands of timberin three categories of average, estimated usable wood peracre: low (16,000 board feet), medium (25,000 board feet),and high volume (35,000 board feet). This map has provento be a helpful tool for managers to use in establishingannual timber harvest levels as called for in the Forest plan.

For more information about how the old-growth forest wasdefined, read Old-growth timber volume estimates, by Julinand Caouette, PNW-GTR-392.

Big trees, fallen logs, and open stands with trees of different heightscharacterize old-growth forests in wind-sheltered areas.

Non-productiveforest 41%

Scrubforest 25%

Productiveforest 34%

Medium-volume

old growth40%

High-volume

old growth38% 11%

Low-volumeold growth

Young growth 11%

The Tongass National Forest is 16.9million acres; the productive 3 forestcomponent is 5.6 million acres.

3 For purposes of the Forest plan, the term“productive” refers to the ability of a forested

area to provide wood products.

16

Debris Avalanches—Sliding Soil and PlantsDebris avalanche is the most common type of landslide inmountainous terrain of the Tongass. When soil becomeswaterlogged on steep slopes, it breaks loose from theunderlying bedrock, and debris avalanches move the thinsoil mantle and plants in it downslope. Although land-slides are an important natural disturbance for deliveringnutrients, gravel, and woody material into streams, exces-sive erosion is troublesome because it can clog spawninggravels and impede upstream salmon migration.

When roads are built and timber is harvested, the fre-quency and sizes of debris avalanches are altered. Athreefold increase can occur in the frequency of debrisavalanches in clearcuts compared to uncut areas. Debrisavalanches in clearcuts tend, however, to be smaller andtravel shorter distances than avalanches in uncut areas, inpart because of where clearcuts are located on the land-scape (e.g., generally lower on the slope).

Debris avalanches have been studied in southeast Alaskafor over 30 years. Research has documented the physicalprocesses that control debris avalanches and their patternsof occurrence across the landscape. The single mostimportant factor regulating soil stability is slope steepness.Harvesting timber on slopes greater than 72 percent createsa high potential for landslides. Other factors affecting soilstability include soil depth, soil drainage, density ofstreams, slope shape and length, and underlying bedrockcharacteristics. On very steep slopes, roots affect stabilityby anchoring the soil into joints and fractures of the under-lying bedrock and by interlocking with roots of adjacentvegetation.

For more information on landslides, see Controlling stabilitycharacteristics..., by Swanston, PNW-GTR-392: 44-58. Toreduce potential landslides, the Forest plan adopted infor-mation from this assessment in not allowing commercialtimber harvest on slopes over 72 percent.

Debris avalanche in MartenArm, northern shore ofBradfield Canal, southeastAlaska (above), and NeetsBay (right).

17

Weathered Limestone—Protecting Fissures,Sinkholes, and CavernsKarst is a geologic feature that forms over centuries asacidic groundwater dissolves limestone and marble. Atthe surface, karst is characterized by fissures, caves, andsinkholes that have developed in the fractured limestone.Fissures in the rock can be relatively fine, like those pic-tured, or they can be large enough to engulf an unwaryhiker. These fissures lead to vertical shafts or sinkholes andlateral tunnels connecting to massive, underground riversystems.

People have long known about these unusual surfacefeatures; however, their connection to subsurface tunnelsand underground water systems has only recently beenappreciated. Since 1989, scientists have been exploringkarst terrain in the Tongass, and their studies have revealedsome surprises. Underground water flow patterns arenoticeably different from surface water runoff patterns. Inseveral tests, environmentally friendly dye was poured intothe underground system. Almost invariably, the dye reap-peared in highly unlikely places—sometimes in surfacestreams 20 miles away!

The nutrient-rich karst waters support some of the mostproductive fisheries in Alaska. Fish feed on aquatic insectsthat thrive in karst waters. Bats and river otters are amongthe many other species that live in the limestone cavesfound in the Tongass.

Some of Alaska's most highly valued timberland is alongvalley bottoms, particularly those developed atop karst.These well-drained, nutrient-rich sites create optimalconditions for tree growth. Trees sink their roots into karstfissures, which makes them less likely to blow over in thewind. Rain trickles through the forest canopy onto theground and through the fissures, bringing with it nutrientsand some sediment. These nutrients support creatures thatlive in the underground river system.

Field observations have revealed that timber harvest canincrease the amount of soil and debris washed into theunderground river system. These sediments disrupt nutrientcycling, dam underground waterways, and make theunderground ecosystem less inhabitable. To aid withmanagement of these sensitive areas, known karst terrainhas been mapped and placed into the Forest's geographicinformation system.

For more information on karst, see Karst landscapes andassociated resources: a resource assessment, by Baichtaland Swanston, PNW-GTR-383.

Well-developed surface or epikarstfrom the alpine zone on DallIsland. Note the cravasslikesolution fissures developed alongjoints and fractures that leaddirectly to deep shafts andultimately to subsurfacedrainage systems.

Highly fractured and jointedlime-stone from the Hecetaformation near Twin Island Lake,northern Prince of Wales Island.

18

How Much Wood is Needed—AnticipatingFuture DemandForecasts of the amount of wood that will be needed by thetimber industry are used by planners to guide their thoughtswhen crafting a Forest plan. Updated forecasts of wooddemand developed by Forest Service scientists are basedon four factors affecting the forest product industry's desirefor Tongass timber:

1. Closure of southeast Alaska's two pulp mills substantiallyreduced the manufacturing capability of the region'sforest products industry.

2. Competition from other suppliers has increased. Exportof sawn lumber from Europe to Japan has increased from0.3 percent in 1990 to more than 10 percent now.

3. Demand for less expensive engineered wood products,such as laminated beams, has increased, while demandfor sawn western hemlock and Sitka spruce structuraltimbers has decreased.

4. Timber harvest levels in the Pacific Northwest are lowerand the cost of buying timber on the stump is higher as aresult of concern over the survival of northern spottedowl and other old-growth-associated wildlife.

A range of projected demands was developed for Tongasstimber though 2010. The lower end projection assumed that:

• Alaska will recover some of the Japanese market lost tocompetitors

• Higher costs and competition will continue to limitAlaska's opportunities

Socioeconomics

19

• Only the higher grade saw logs accounting for less than50 percent of the available timber will be used.

The higher end projection assumed that:

• Alaska will recover a greater share of the Japanese market.

• Timber buyers will pay a premium for old-growth logs.

• Nearly the entire range of saw-log quality grades will beused.

For more information about projected timber demand, readTimber products output and timber harvests in Alaska:projections for 1997-2010, by Brooks and Haynes, PNW-GTR-409.

This graph shows past and futuretimber demand projections inrelation to the actual timber harvest.Also shown is the allowable salequantity: the maximum amount oftimber that can be sold annuallyfrom the Tongass. This levelrepresents a sustainable amount oftimber that can be harvested fromthe forest and is not determined bydemand. The upper limitestablished by the Forest plan (1997and beyond) is a calculation for theamount of timber that can beremoved from the Forest, on asustainable basis, in the contextof multiple-use management.

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is themaximum amount of timber that may be soldfrom the Tongass. The current ASQ is 267million board feet per year. One board footmeasures 1 foot square by 1 inch thick. About15,800 board feet of wood are needed tobuild a conventional 2,000-square-foot home,

including the framing,sheathing, flooring,molding, and cabinets.

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600ASQ before new Forest plan

Year

Tim

ber

volu

me

(mill

ion

boar

d fe

et)

ASQ after new Forest plan

Allowable sale quantity (ASQ)

Historical demand projectionActual timber harvested

High scenario demand projectionMedium scenario demand projectionLow scenario demand projection

20

People of the Panhandle—Finding an Economic Focal PointSoutheast Alaska consists of a narrow strip of mainland anda chain of hundreds of islands known as the AlexanderArchipelago. The region's abundant resources from theforest and the water have provided for the physical andcultural livelihood of its inhabitants for thousands of years.Today, about 74,000 people live in its towns, communities,and villages, with Juneau, the state capital, accounting foralmost 40 percent of the population (1995 data). TheForest Service has responsibility for managing more than80 percent of the land area (16.9 of 21 million acres) andthus has a pervasive influence on the quality of life for theregion's inhabitants.

The economic picture of southeast Alaska differs accord-ing to regional and local perspectives. Although reportson regional conditions provide a broad understanding ofeconomic health and trends, they mask local conditionsin specific boroughs or communities. Both perspectivesare necessary to bring the interrelated communities andthe relations with management of the Tongass intosharper focus.

21

For the region—The social and economic systems ofsoutheast Alaska are subject to many of the same forcesaffecting rural areas nationwide. The region has a highunemployment rate; however, this is a structural featurethat characterizes small rural communities elsewhere in theNation and does not necessarily indicate a trend in anyparticular industry. Population, employment, and wageshave increased in recent years but at a slower rate than inthe past. Between 1985 and 1994, population grew morethan 1 percent annually to 72,700 people. During thissame period, employment increased by 2 percent annuallyto 47,400 workers, but future job growth is projected to beless than 1 percent annually. Traditionally, wage rates inthe state as a whole have been higher than those in the restof the Nation, but the gap is narrowing: Alaska wages were

38 percent higher than the national average in 1985 butonly 18 percent higher in 1994. Federal, state, and localgovernments are a primary source of jobs in the region,with Forest Service employment accounting for at least 45percent of Federal government employment, although thelevel of employment has been declining.

Natural resource-based employment—In recent years, theregion's share of natural resource-related employment inwood products, commercial fishing and seafood process-ing, recreation and tourism, and mining and mineraldevelopment has remained fairly steady; however, the mixof jobs is changing, with far fewer jobs in the wood prod-ucts industry and substantially more in tourism. The recentclosure of southeast Alaska's two pulp mills added to thistrend, and timber harvest levels continue to decrease on

both Forest Service and privatelands. One effect of this shift isa lowering of average annualincome; jobs in the pulp millsnot only paid higher-than-average wages, but they alsowere year-round jobs thatemployed many southeastAlaska residents. The timberindustry in southeast Alaska isin a state of transition that maytake several years to reach anew equilibrium. The tourismindustry is expanding as cruiseship and ecotourism visitscontinue to increase. Thenumber of jobs in fishing andseafood processing remainssteady despite changes inindustry structure and manage-ment.0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Other employment

Services

Retail trade

Manufacturing

Transportation and public utilities

Federal government

Construction

Finance, insurance, and real estate

Wholesale trade

Agriculture, forestry and fish services

Mining

Agriculture production

Employed (percent)

Southeast Alaska employment by sector for 1995.

22

Subsistence is vital to rural economies—Subsistence is animportant part of the Alaska economy, although it is notrevealed by measures of economic growth, employment, orincome. A subsistence lifestyle reinforces self-reliance andis one of the reasons why some people move to or remainin southeast Alaska. Following are four key facts aboutsubsistence use in southeast Alaska:

• Eighty-five percent of rural households harvest subsis-tence food

• Forty percent of all households obtain at least a quarterof their food from subsistence harvest

• Thirty percent of rural households obtain 50 percent ormore of their meat from subsistence activity

• One in 10 households harvested more than 10 differenttypes of subsistence resources

Subregional trends—At the subregional level, southeastAlaska is composed of five boroughs and three censusareas (the functional equivalent of counties elsewhere inthe United States). Three of the five boroughs are city-boroughs: Juneau, Sitka, and Yakutat.

Economic diversity—Economic diversity refers to thebalance of employment among various industries and is onemeasure of economic health. Although southeast Alaska'sregional economy is becoming more diversified, the econo-mies of its boroughs and census areas (land areas for whichboroughs have not been established) are among the leastdiversified in the Nation. Even though low economicdiversity is a common characteristic of small, semi-isolatedcommunities, it is still of concern to local residents.

Local conditions dictate employment and income levels—Employment growth rate has slowed in most borough-census areas since the 1980s, but the size of the decreasehas differed widely. Growth has been negative in someborough-census areas as a direct result of decreases inemployment in the wood products sector.

Subsistence includes customaryand traditional uses by rural Alaskaresidents of wild renewable resourcesfor direct, personal, or familyconsumption as food, shelter, fuel,clothing, tools, or transportation; forthe making and selling of handicraftarticles out of nonedible byproducts offish and wildlife resources taken forpersonal or family consumption; forbarter or sharing for personal or familyconsumption; and for customary trade.

23

Corresponding changes in personal income occurredduring the period. The greatest personal income losseswere in Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan borough-censusarea in the southern portion of the region, where growth inthe job sector did not keep pace with a sharp populationincrease. On the other hand, increased tourism has pro-vided a boost to job creation and personal income,particularly in northern borough-census areas.

Annual employment growth by borough-census area for 1981 to 1995.

Borough-census areas differ in their dependence onnatural resource-related jobs—Areas of southeast Alaskadiffer greatly in employment related to natural resources.Northern borough-census areas, for example, are lessreliant on the wood products industry for their employmentbase and contain higher proportions of employment inrecreation and tourism. Differences become morepronounced at the community level.

Community conditions—Community-level economic conditions were assessedfrom 32 communities or groupings ofsimilar communities. A new touristattraction or the loss of a major employercan have great localized impacts. Becauseof their relatively small number anddiverse characteristics, southeast Alaskacommunities are unique and difficult todescribe as a group. Communities differin population, ethnic composition,income, subsistence use, and economicdiversity.

For more information about the economy,read Economies in transition: an assess-ment of trends relevant to managementof the Tongass National Forest, by Allenand others, PNW-GTR-417.

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Employment (percent)

Haines

Annual growth 1981-90

Juneau

Agoon-Hoonah Skagway

Prince of Wales IslandOuter-Ketchikan

Ketchikan-Gateway

Sitka

Wrangell-Petersburg

Annual growth 1990-95

24

Yakutat's economy is dependent onfishing, fish processing, and government.One hundred and seventy-four residentshold commercial fishing permits. Acold storage plant is the major privateemployer. Recreational fishing oppor-tunities, both saltwater and freshwater inthe Situk River, are world-class. Mostresidents depend on subsistence huntingand fishing. Salmon, trout, shellfish,deer, moose, bear, and goats areharvested.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Employment (percent)

Bor

ough

-cen

sus

area

Haines

Juneau

Angoon-Hoonah Skagway

Prince of Wales IslandOuter-Ketchikan

Ketchikan-Gateway

Sitka

Wrangell-Petersburg Lodging, restaurants, and recreational services

Seafood processing

Wood products industry

25

Wood-related manufacturing,government other than Federal, retailtrade, and services dominatedKetchikan's economy in 1995; sincethen, the manufacturing sector lost nearly500 jobs when the pulp mill closed.Tongass-related employment inKetchikan is divided among woodproducts, seafood, and tourism.

Seafood processing and other types ofoperations, government other than Federal,

and retail trade dominate Petersburg'seconomy. Fishing and seafood processing

dominate Tongass-related employment here.

26

Consistency Check—Ensuring the Use of ScienceForest Service scientists conducted an independent reviewof the ways that managers applied available resourceinformation to major decisions in the Forest plan. Manage-ment decisions were judged to be consistent with availablescientific information when:

• All scientific information made available to managerswas considered in the decision.

• Scientific information was understood and correctlyinterpreted by managers.

• Resource risks were acknowledged and documented bymanagers.

The review was conducted by applying these criteria to anarray of important resource decisions made in the Forestplan. Results of this evaluation were given to the managerswhile the Forest plan was still in draft form so that manag-ers could adjust the plan to make the best use of availableinformation. Managers and scientists worked together toensure that the best scientific information available wasinterpreted correctly, and that resource risks and tradeoffswere acknowledged. The final review of the Forest planindicated a high degree of consistency with the availablescientific information.

For more information on how science was used to formu-late the Forest plan, see the following papers:

Evaluation of the use of scientific information in developingthe 1997 Forest plan for the Tongass National Forest, byEverest and others, PNW-GTR-415.

Scientific information and the Tongass land managementplan: key findings derived from the scientific literature,species assessments, resource analyses, workshops, and riskassessment panels, by Swanston and others, PNW-GTR-386.

Applying Scientific Information

Scientists should not advocate any particularoutcome or decision; they should, however,determine whether the decision is consistent

with the science information.Thomas J. Mills

Station DirectorPacific NorthwestResearch Station

27

As a “living” document, the Forest plan needs to be fed newinformation as it becomes available. These new sources ofinformation become the building blocks for change.

As part of the long-range effort to improve the informationbase available to support management decisions in theTongass National Forest, Pacific Northwest Research Stationscientists have been working with their colleagues in theAlaska Region of the Forest Service and other agencies toaddress the high-priority information needs identified in theForest plan. Studies scheduled for completion in the next 3to 5 years address the following issues:

• Growth rates of young trees on certain wetland soilsfollowing timber harvest

• Quality of wood in developing young-growth stands

• Genetic relations and habitat needs for certain locallydistinct small mammals

• Nesting biology and food preferences of the northerngoshawk

• Contributions of upstream, non-fish-bearing streams tothe quality of downstream fish habitat

• Biological, social, and economic aspects of alternativesto clearcutting

• Interactions between forest management actions and theeconomic and social fabric of communities

• Economics of forest-related tourism

The primary goal of this collaborative effort is to have anenhanced information base available for managers to useby 2002, when they will conduct a 5-year review of theForest plan. The new information will help managersevaluate the effectiveness of the plan in meeting its statedgoals and objectives and in providing background tosupport any changes managers may decide are necessary tobetter meet the goals and objectives of the plan.

The additional information also will enhance our abilityto integrate and synthesize knowledge across disciplineareas (e.g., fish and wildlife, landscape dynamics, andsocieoeconomics). This process should allow us to morefully understand and appreciate the intricate interactionsand balance among biological, physical, and socioeco-nomic components of the Tongass and its people. Thus, thescientific information should continue to provide highlyrelevant input into policy decisionmaking, on-the-groundmanagement, and the needs of the people who use andappreciate the Tongass and its resources.

What the Future Holds—Addressing Information Needs

28

We wrote this paper around the premise that “sciencematters.” This title was used to frame both the scientificinformation itself and its importance. On one side, sciencematters (the noun) include the physical, biological, andsocial elements of the forest ecosystem that become under-stood through scientific methods of discovery. On theother side, science matters (the verb) when land managersapply scientific information to balance competing resourceneeds.

We hope that your journey through some Tongass-specificinformation recently developed, assessed, and synthesizedby research scientists has led you to an understanding ofwhy science does matter in the Tongass. It matters not onlybecause obtaining new knowledge is exciting and mentallystimulating, but also because the information derived canhave direct practical applications to the often contentiousmanagement of these public lands.

The information not only should help managers makeinformed decisions about allocation of resources to meetoften competing demands but also help the public betterunderstand and thus more clearly articulate their desires forthe direction of resource management on these, theirpublic lands. The nature of that management, and thepublic understanding regarding it, can be enlightened byscience, an objective of this paper and the other Tongassassessments noted herein. But the decisions regardingmanagement direction are societal ones. An informedopinion expressed by the public regarding these complexmanagement issues should benefit all components ofsociety who use and appreciate this unique temperaterain forest.

Conclusion

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple usemanagement of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, andrecreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, andmanagement of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activitieson the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexualorientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons withdisabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, largeprint, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station,333 S.W. First Avenue, P.O. Box 3890,Portland, Oregon 97208-3890