8-11-17 A Looming Disaster in Alaska's Susitna Basin?

Today we provide this letter that a long time reader and natural resource expert sent us yesterday. While the general subject revolves around forest management for maximum benefit of Alaska’s people, we note that the concepts of multiple use and sustain yield apply to oil, gas and mining. Why? Because mining and energy do not preclude other uses of public and private lands — and are highly regulated in any case. Second, while forests and hunted and fished species, managed properly, are “renewable”, oil, gas and mining are “newable”. Finite mineral and mining production can be “newable” resources in the sense that when reasonable government regulatory and tax burdens are in place, investors will continue to look for and find the “new” wealth hidden within the earth’s crust from time’s beginning, enabling those industries to look very much like those engaging in “renewable, sustained yield, multiple use management of living resources”. As an example, when investors over three decades ago were given assurance by republican and democrat leaders of Alaska that a “fair share” of production had been attained, a 20 year period of stability and new investment materialized. Investors’ confidence, in fact, turned an initial proved reserves calculation at Prudhoe Bay (i.e. 9.6 billion barrels) into what has now become a production history of over 17 billion barrels of Alaska North Slope oil. Therefore, we continue to urge elected and regulatory officials to regard both mineral and living natural resources as “renewable” or “newable”. In either case, jobs and prosperity follow political certainty when prospective, profitable production beckons and officials keep faithful to the state’s constitution. Thanks, Terry, for your insight today. -dh

There’s a Way to Repair the Damage Caused by Poor Management of Alaska’s Susitna Basin

It’s not too late for government to begin acting proactively, managing forest resources for the maximum benefit of our citizens!

by

Terry Brady

Terry Brady stock photo by Dave Harbour, Northern Gas Pipelines

To fulfill their constitutional role, elected officials should recognize and that a concentration on central planning, without proactive efforts to carry out sustained-yield/multiple use development, has failed the state government, the people, and the environment. Rather than discourage development, as it has in the Susitna Basin, the state must take steps to encourage modern total forest resource management. The rewards could be everlasting and sustainable. The results would also be consistent with demands of Alaska’s Constitution.

Observations:

The State of Alaska was formed about 6 decades ago by a compact between “It’s People” (see Alaska Constitution, Article VIII, Section 2) and the Government of the United States. The Statehood Act allowed the new state to select vacant and unappropriated federal public domain lands and waters for purposes of settlement and to support the government created to serve Alaskans. This was to be accomplished by developing, while conserving, natural resources. Alaska is unique in its emphasis on natural resources in addition to more commonly stated individual rights in the U.S. and other states’ constitutions.
The Constitution of the State of Alaska mandates that replenishable resources (fish, game, timber, etc.) be developed and conserved for multiple uses under the sustained yield principal, subject to resource priorities that are in the best interests of “its people”.
Developed and conserved means proactive management consistent with perpetual use and replenishment while not degrading or allowing degradation of resources or the environment from which they spring.
Yet the State of Alaska has oftentimes, on paper, created priorities to the detriment of the very forest ecosystem that should provide the clean water, food, and habitat upon which the populations and yields of fish and wildlife depend.
Most often this is done by failure to physically manage resources, while supporting Nature in replenishing beneficial resources. This is currently the case in the Susitna Basin where the timber is demonstrably degrading, is not sufficiently renewed, or sufficiently utilized, while the land is losing the carrying capacity for animals such as moose.
Research pointing to a deteriorating forest biome (i.e. forest fires, over mature and malformed birch, insect infected spruce, with little regeneration, are just examples) demonstrates that leaving nature alone to manage is detrimental to the greater number of people that need and desire the benefits of nature, including subsistence, recreation, and jobs that a healthy and producing ecosystem can sustainably produce.
Much of the Susitna Basin is known to be changing from forest to grassland without commiserate economic and social benefit to “its people”,
By “Central Planning” without accompanying sustained-maximum yield management actions, the State is failing its responsibilities to “its people”, and is wasting replenishable natural resources.

Alaska is currently failing to properly manage forest resources. Without drastic changes, the state government will continue to fail the citizens it was formed to serve.

The State, influenced by special interests, has overlooked the opportunities provided in the Statehood Act, and codified in the state’s constitution and statutes.

By not balancing the liquidation of non-renewable resources and benefits (money) therefrom, with development and conservation of resources that if actively managed will benefit both the environment and social needs of the population for many years to come, the State inadvertently or not, is failing “It’s People”. The goal should not be making the government expansive and rich for larger immigrant populations. Rather, government’s goal must be to make its existing people and their offspring better off. This is possible given the vast natural wealth of Alaska.

Suggested Actions:

Create an educational program for citizens and their leaders that demonstrates how the constitutional mandate of “maximum benefit” for the people can be most effectively implemented.
Continue knowledge sharing and dialogue between agencies responsible for natural resources, while insuring such agencies also faithfully observe development and conservation mandates for replenishable resources in particular.
Encourage larger scale industrial forestry to fully utilize wood (logs, biomass) for their highest, best, and most logical uses in line with the latest technology and market opportunities. This can be done through regeneration harvesting.
Refocus the Division of Forestry, that is subservient to the Division of Mining, Land and Water, both within the Department of Natural Resources, from being simply a reactionary fire department, into a proactive agency that follows its Forestry background as well as all the dictates of the state constitution and statutes.
Provide opportunities for the private sector to take advantage of both domestic and export market opportunities to generate the funds for forest rehabilitation and to support jobs. Doing this (i.e. for biomass export for example) requires the state to cause the forests it manages to be certified by one or more internationally recognized third parties. This can only occur when there is audited evidence that the forests are being sustainably managed. Such evidence is currently lacking and the forests are not certified. Some international markets are currently closed to many products originating in Alaskan forests.
Reduce financial risks, and encourage private investors and job creators. Enter into long term forest management contracts, with the State providing oversight, while private sector contractors carry out the major field operations pursuant to laws and regulations. This should make the bureaucracies leaner and more effective while taking advantage of accumulated education and experience in the private sector.
Immediately recognize that past mismanagement or lack of management has resulted in forest deterioration that is demonstrably accelerating. Revenue from regeneration harvesting and other agricultural treatments should not be intended to enrich the state treasury or provide extraneous jobs in the bureaucracy. The goal must be long term benefits for citizens.

Conclusion:

While not proactively managing for maximum sustainable yields may be justified in the case of a dedicated wilderness, the Susitna Basin is not a wilderness area. The failure of the caretaker state to manage for the maximum benefit from renewable resources for the benefit of the most citizens violates both the spirit and the legal requirements of the Constitution and statutes and regulations enacted therefrom.The Status Quo only encourages and prolongs an unsustainable, minimal use disaster that does not work toward maximum benefit for the people. As the late former President of the University of Alaska William R. Wood stated in relation to Alaska’s Boreal Forests “Use them or Lose them”.

Terry T. Brady, MS (wood science)

Terry T. Brady has lived and worked throughout Alaska during the entire period of Statehood, beginning with wildfire control in the State’s Interior for the Bureau of Land Management. His education is in forestry, forest products, wildlife management and journalism. Brady has served as consultant to Alaska Native corporations, major oil companies and forest companies in the state and throughout the world. He is a former columnist and reporter for the Anchorage Times, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, and Tundra Times.