Resource Development Council
 
 

From the Executive Director - Rick Rogers

Here we go again, from NPR-A to

the national forests, the federal, “Yes...but...”

Here we go again, the federal “Yes...but...”

Without access to natural resources, the potential for Alaska to support sustainable communities is severely limited. While there are legal and political limits to additional federal Wilderness withdrawals, federal agencies continue to whittle down lands available to support Alaska’s resource dependent economy. I share RDC President Phil Cochrane’s outrage (page 10) with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision to severely limit oil and gas exploration in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). Sadly, the NPR-A action is not unique, but yet another example of an all too common trend of access restrictions that undermine the original congressional intent for these federal lands. I call it the “Yes…but” syndrome.

It goes something like this: Yes, these lands are available for resource development as mandated by Congress, but (insert impossible restrictions, land use plans, and other constraints that result in an inability to actually achieve congressional intent).

Another example of “Yes...but” is with the management of our national forests. Our federal national forests were established under a working forest model. Unlike the national parks that were established for preservation, the national forests were established under the authority of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 to conserve water flows and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the American people. The notion of the working forest has been with us for over a century. A working forest is one that recognizes the human component of our forest, incentivizes workforce development and local jobs while providing opportunities to enhance wildlife habitat and recreational and subsistence activities. A working forest provides society with a triple bottom line – environment, society, and economy.

In 1905 Gifford Pinchot, a Roosevelt Administration forester credited with the establishment of our national forest system, summed up the purpose for which our national forest were established.

Forest reserves are for the purpose of preserving a perpetual supply of timber for home industries, preventing destruction of forest cover which regulates the flow of streams, and protecting local residents from unfair competition in the use of forest and range. They are patrolled and protected, at Government expense, for the benefit of the community and the home builder.

As our nation grew and demands on our forests increased, additional acts of congress refined but did not supersede the Organic Act. The 1960 multiple use sustained yield act added outdoor recreation, range, fish and wildlife to the balance of national forest uses. The 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) established a framework for forest planning, however nowhere did congress alter the fundamental mandate to balance water, timber, recreation, range, fish and wildlife.

This April, lacking any authority from Congress, the Obama administration tossed all that history on its ear with the adoption of new a federal forest-planning rule. The rule emphasizes ecosystem services, carbon sequestration and spiritual sustenance. While federal law requires the Forest Service to balance environmental, social and economic concerns (the working forest triple bottom line), the new rule elevates “ecological integrity” to a higher level of concern. The planning rule requires the Forest Service to “maintain a viable population of each species of conservation concern within the plan area.” The ill-defined term “viable population” does not appear in NFMA or any other statute.

Through the planning rule the administration has effectively redefined the very purpose for which the national forests were established, in direct contradiction to the congressional intent. Yes the national forest are established as working forests for production of water and timber…but good luck distinguishing these lands from national parks. After complying with the new planning rule, the renewable forest and range resources on 193 million acres of federal lands, including 22 million in Alaska, are likely to produce little in the way of resources to support local economies. How can they when “ecological integrity” trumps the congressional mandate to provide for the needs of citizens and communities.

In August, RDC joined with twelve other interested parties, including the Alaska Forest Association and other recreation, forestry and cattlemen groups, to file suit in Federal District Court to overturn the rule. One would hope that Congress would flinch and take decisive efforts to rein in an unconstrained administration and move us towards a more balanced working forest model. But with today’s congressional gridlock there is nowhere to turn except the courts to try to slow the endless march towards a lockup of our federal natural resource assets that are essential to the well being of our communities.

If the federal government can’t manage its lands as Congress intended to support local economies and states, perhaps it’s time to rethink the entire model of federal ownership. Serious consideration should be given to the conveyance of lands not congressionally designated as wilderness, parks, refuges, and military reserves to the states or trusts. Such lands could then once again be managed as working lands to support our nation’s need for essential resources and to support state and local economies, providing the triple bottom line – environment, society, and economy.

Return to newsletter headlines