Our View: Moratorium on forest roads right decision

There’s no better time to call a timeout on a thorny public policy issue than when you’re strapped for cash. On Thursday, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a directive calling for a moratorium on development projects in national forests unless he approves of them. Might as well, since the feds are looking for ways to cut the budget and new forest roads are unpopular with the public and a low spending priority.

The Vilsack directive is the latest in a long line of political moves that date to the 2001 development ban on 58 million acres issued by President Clinton as he was leaving office. That controversial salvo was matched in 2005 when President Bush issued his own executive order, which lifted the moratorium and allowed states to draw up plans for national forests within their borders. Idaho did just that for its 9.3 million acres, with then-Gov. Jim Risch devising a plan that left most of the acreage off-limits.

Vilsack exempted Idaho from the rule. Projects that were already federally approved can move forward. But the biggest proposed project – timber sales in roadless areas of Tongass National Forest in Alaska – could be delayed.

While the timber industry and environmentalists have duked it out over this issue, the driving force for national forest decisions in recent years has been the budget. Cutbacks have made it difficult for the agency to manage what it has, let alone new projects. Increasingly, it has to rely on volunteers to keep foot trails in good repair. On top of that, the price tag for the maintenance of its 400,000 miles of roads is more than $10 billion.

To complicate matters further, the 9th and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal have issued contrasting rulings on the controversy. Either or both of those cases could end up with the Supreme Court.

All of that adds up to a management nightmare for the Forest Service. The nation needs a better plan than the outright ban of Clinton and the state-by-state directive of Bush. Congress has worked on some promising bills, but hasn’t been able to pass any of them. The Obama administration needs to prod lawmakers back into action, because this issue should be determined by elected officials, not courts responding to lawsuits from special interests.

A possible compromise is to hold off on new roads until the backlog dwindles, but allowing for public access. Trees could be cut to help with watershed issues and fire suppression, but road-building for commercial operations would be limited. Less than 5 percent of forest products come from national forests, so federal spending on that should be closely scrutinized.

Vilsack’s directive is a welcome move. It gives the Forest Service a much-needed breather and starts the clock in Congress for a long-term solution.