There’s a narrative floating about that Alaska lacks merchantable timber, or that permits exist without wood to harvest. That claim is convenient for those who oppose active forest management, but it doesn’t hold up when examined against hard data or realities on the ground.
In Southeast Alaska, U.S. Forest Service assessments show that Tongass’ young growth is accumulating biomass faster than older models predicted. Estimates indicate that up to 450,000 acres of second-growth forest are approaching commercial viability. No serious forester claims every acre is ready for harvest today, but the resource is real, growing and consistently undervalued in federal planning decisions. On Kupreanof Island near Petersburg, Forest Service staff have identified roughly 4.5 million board feet of young-growth timber available, now. Industry operators believe the figure may be closer to 8 million, with projections showing growth to between 44 and 70 million board feet by 2032 on that island alone.
Peer-reviewed research, agency inventories and industry analyses point in the same direction. Young-growth yields are stronger than outdated estimates once suggested. Many stands already support thinning and selective harvest, with broader commercial use achievable through active management over time. Federal data has historically been overly conservative, contributing to fewer timber sales, reduced private investment and weaker incentives for forest health treatments. When forests are left unmanaged, problems do not disappear. Insects increase, fuel loads build and forest resilience declines.
Alaska, with some of the richest forest resources in the nation, remains among the least developed.
This challenge extends beyond Southeast Alaska. The Chugach National Forest in Southcentral currently has no dedicated commercial timber program in its management plan, with a projected sale quantity of zero. One has to wonder what the projected beetle kill is. Minimal timber reaches industry through fuels reduction or restoration projects, and establishing a predictable program would require plan updates that recognize sustainable harvest as a legitimate objective alongside other values.
Interior Alaska and regions such as the Copper River Basin hold millions of acres of spruce, birch, aspen and mixed stands with merchantable potential. The limiting factor is not the absence of trees. It is access. Sparse road systems, long hauling distances, short operating seasons and regulatory uncertainty leave biologically abundant forests economically stranded under current rules. That is a policy choice, not a natural constraint.
Where policy provides access and certainty, timber does flow. State timber sales in the Interior routinely attract bidders. Small-scale operators support local mills, biomass energy, log home construction and community needs. These are not theoretical successes. They demonstrate that Alaska forestry works when policy supports it.
For decades, the timber industry and Alaska Native corporations have warned that without a reliable wood supply, particularly from federal lands, mills will close and investment will dry up. That’s an economic reality, not a threat. Alaskans feel the actual consequences through higher housing and construction costs. This uncertainty has been compounded by the steady decline in Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) in Tongass forest plans.
The 1979 plan set ASQ at 450 million board feet annually, supporting more than 3,000 jobs. That level persisted through the 1980s and early 1990s, then dropped to 267 million in the 1997 and 2008 plans, before being phased down again under the 2016 amendment to roughly 46 to 72 million board feet. Each revision reduced suitable acres and often justified lower ASQ by citing reduced demand, even as litigation and planning delays constrained supply.
Walking away from our forests or closing more mills is the worst possible outcome for communities and the environment.
Unlike timber regions elsewhere that benefit from a mix of private, state, and federal ownership, Southeast Alaska’s near-total reliance on federal land makes it uniquely vulnerable to federal policy swings every four to eight years. Statewide harvest levels remain low, typically between 100 and 300 million board feet in recent years, with Tongass volumes only a fraction of historic or sustainable levels. Regions with comparable forest bases elsewhere sustain viable industries through better access, planning and infrastructure. Alaska, with some of the richest forest resources in the nation, remains among the least developed.
The human cost is undeniable. Southeast Alaska has lost thousands of direct timber-related jobs over decades, with employment now a small fraction of historic levels. Some past industry practices fell short, and that history should be acknowledged honestly. But decades of restrictive federal and state management have also hollowed out the workforce and infrastructure needed to manage forests responsibly. Communities and forests alike have paid the price.
The path forward is not complicated, but it does require political will. Recent federal directives create opportunities to increase responsible timber production if agencies choose to act. That means active young-growth management in the Tongass, improved access and infrastructure in the Interior and regulatory reforms, including updates to plans such as the Chugach’s to incorporate sustainable timber objectives. It means addressing Roadless Rule barriers where appropriate, offering predictable and appropriately scaled timber sales, updating lumber grading standards for young-growth products, certifying small mills and building local processing capacity.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
To restore investor confidence, agencies should prioritize shelf volume through accelerated NEPA planning, purchaser-assisted layout after environmental review, low-interest financing to offset imported lumber costs, and multi-year basin-scale plans that provide long-term certainty.
This matters because when viable economic activity is stifled, pressure builds to chase revenue elsewhere, often reopening old-growth debates or shifting toward less sustainable alternatives such as carbon offset schemes that export value out of state. A stand suitable for thinning today can face far more destructive pressures tomorrow if markets and certainty are not established now. Responsible harvest protects long-term stewardship and local control.
Alaska’s forestry challenge is not a shortage of trees. It is a shortage of policies that work. Southeast Alaska has diversified successfully, with strong growth in tourism, seafood, health care, and other sectors. A renewed, sustainable timber industry can complement that progress rather than compete with it. This is easy to accomplish.
Walking away from our forests or closing more mills is the worst possible outcome for communities and the environment. Managing them responsibly through sound policy and collaboration is not radical. It is practical, balanced, long overdue and I look forward to a renewed industry with God’s best renewable resource.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
