The Obama Administration’s decision to make development on 53 million acres of roadless national forest land more difficult is yet another setback for economic recovery. If this nation is to take a time out it should be from attacking the use of our resources to create jobs and wealth. Furthermore, a "time out" from development seems to imply that there is a need for more protection, nothing could be further from the truth.

Forestry ranks among the top 10 employers in 40 of the 50 states. Each year about 1.7 billion tree seedlings are planted—or about 6 trees for every tree harvested. The United States has approximately the same forest acreage today as it did in 1907. These results clearly establish that our forest and paper industry are excellent stewards of our forests.

Notwithstanding that our forest and paper industry cares so well for our forest land, environmental restrictions on federal forestlands have resulted in a 93% decline in federal timber harvests since 1987. Environmentalists have used NEPA to obstruct timber sales. Since its enactment, there have been more than 3,500 lawsuits against federal agencies complaining of NEPA violations. According to estimates, more than 1.6 billion board feet—or nearly 80% of the average annual sale of timber from national forestland—is currently tied up in litigation.

This nation’s founder of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, had a strong belief that the forest and the surrounding communities were one economic unit that preserved each other for present and future economic and environmental benefit. This philosophy helped build the nation. Our new philosophy is to wall off our forests from all forms of economic activity and these walls will gradually help dismantle the economic base of the nation.

On top of all of this effort to restrict economic activity in our forests, the administration is now calling a “time out” from any new development. This new moratorium is not a “time out;” it is the penalty box and the entire industry has been put in it for decades.

Nevertheless, the decision should not be viewed in a vacuum; it is just one of a growing number of examples of the comprehensive, “anti-development” agenda that seems to be coming clearly into view. In just a short time we have seen a pattern emerge of executive decisions which erect barriers to the development of any of our nation’s natural resources: mining, oil, gas, water, forests.

For an Administration ostensibly committed to stimulating a slow economy, the recent roadless decision is a good example of how words and deeds can travel separate paths. When one considers that the forest products industry accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP, or that it generates more than $200 billion a year in sales and employs more than 1 million people, one might think a "time out" on such a productive section of our economy would be a bad idea.

But once there is the realization that the attack on the means that create wealth is part of a wider “anti-development” agenda, then, of course, it makes perfect sense. To prove out this theory the U.S. Chamber started the Project No Project website. www.projectnoproject.com is a list of just energy projects that have been stopped or substantially delayed by environmentalists or those who believe economic activity should not be in their back yard. Just in a few months the Chamber has been able to identify approximately 300 stopped or delayed projects accounting for almost one-half trillion dollars in private sector investment and almost 120,000 very needed jobs.

These "time outs" or moratoria or other restrictions are literally the building blocks to the de-industrialization of the nation. It is time they stop and that we recognize that economic development and environmental protection are partners.

This timeout on development in America’s roadless forests will certainly benefit the nation. A one-year moratorium is entirely appropriate—particularly in light of the critical role our unroaded forests play in a world threatened by global warming.

For eight years, the Bush administration did everything in its power to dismantle environmental protections for national forests. Recent court rulings on the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, combined with the Bush record, had left 49 million acres of roadless forests vulnerable to road-building, mining, and logging. The problem with this kind of development in roadless forests is that once you start, there’s no turning back. And we simply can’t afford to get this one wrong.

Our roadless forests safeguard clean drinking water for millions of Americans, provide recreational opportunities, protect habitat for wildlife, and provide a defense in a warming world. It’s critical that decisions on the future of roadless lands in our national forests—forests that belong to all Americans—be coordinated, rather than made on a piecemeal basis by individual forest managers.

Protecting our roadless forests has incredibly broad support. One-quarter of U.S. Senators and a quarter of House members recently wrote to the agriculture secretary to request the timeout that was announced late last week. The 2001 roadless rule was approved after years of scientific study and public input. It became the most popular rule in U.S. history, with more than 1.7 million people submitting supporting comments to the government. Despite this broad consensus, the previous administration turned its back on good science and public support, and set out to dismantle the rule for purely political reasons. Last week’s action by President Obama marks a welcome return to science and reason, rather than politics, as the basis for sound public policy.

The Wilderness Society continues to believe that the roadless rule should cover all forests including the 9.3 million acres in the state of Idaho, and we’ll be working with the Obama administration to try to reinstate nationwide protection.

In the meantime, the timeout is absolutely the best way to manage our unroaded forests while we work to develop a longer-term plan. With a timeout, everyone who cares about our roadless forests will be able to thoughtfully consider what we want these forests to look like in 100 years. Forests are more important than ever to the long-term health of the planet, and it’s right to take a very careful look at how we manage them before we allow activities that could cause irreversible damage.

The nation will certainly benefit from the conservation of roadless areas. That is why we’re pleased that President Obama has taken steps to defend the implementation of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule through an interim directive, which elevates development decisions in roadless areas to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

The interim directive, announced Thursday by Secretary Vilsack, is a good start by the administration and the leadership at the Department of Agriculture, which face the challenge of cleaning up after the Bush administration, including untangling an incoherent and unbalanced approach to forest policy. From the conservation of roadless areas, to the way national forests conduct planning and manage wildlife, the Bush administration catered to special interests and the forces of development to the detriment of the land and wildlife.

Roadless area conservation makes sense for a number of reasons, from economics to ecology. Roadless areas support a growing outdoor recreation industry that fuels many local economies; they support fish, wildlife and plant populations; and they protect the nation’s lakes and rivers. In addition, roadless areas help in the fight against global warming by storing carbon and allowing plants and animals to adapt to a warming world. There’s no doubt that these areas will continue to play a prominent role in President Obama’s energy and climate policy goals.

During his campaign, President Obama recognized the importance of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, correctly pointing out in public statements that developing roadless areas threatens fish, wildlife and water quality. President Obama then stated that he would be “proud to support and defend” the landmark rule. We are starting to see him live up to that commitment through this interim directive – but it is only a first step.

The administration, as part of its commitment to roadless area conservation, should also take the following steps to realize that commitment:

• President Obama and Secretary Vilsack should defend and secure the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. To the extent the Vilsack directive implies the development of a new long-term policy that conserves roadless areas, that policy should be the same as the carefully-crafted 2001 rule.
• The Obama administration should acknowledge that good policy is already in place with the 2001 rule. It makes little sense to engage in extensive, new roadless policymaking after some 1.7 million comments were submitted in support of roadless protections during the first rulemaking. Acknowledging this robust process, Obama said during the campaign that the 2001 rule “was made on the basis of extensive citizen input.” And he was right.

Widespread public support, public involvement and thorough analysis and assessment produced the 2001 rule – it represented good forest policy then and still does today. Further strengthening of the rule is possible without going through the full regulatory process again.

Our National Forests are perhaps our most misunderstood public natural resources and one of the biggest challenges they face is answering the question, “What are they for?” They are not national parks, nor are they strictly tree farms, mines or recreation areas. Instead, they are a hybrid of all of these, unless Congress sets aside an area for a specific purpose. Ensuring they continue to meet the often competing needs of their multi-faceted identities requires a constant reevaluation and commitment to a sense of balance.

The management of National Forest roadless areas has been controversial for many years, with often conflicting directions from the legislative, judicial, and executive branches creating uncertainty and erecting barriers to the effective stewardship of these important resources. In the face of this unresolved confusion, the Secretary of Agriculture’s decision to take the next year to conduct a comprehensive review of National Forest roadless policy is a welcome one.

The new policy does not place a moratorium on new road and forest management projects in National Forest roadless areas, but instead puts the authority for their approval with the Secretary of Agriculture instead of the Forest Service Chief. Furthermore, the policy preserves the Secretary’s latitude to consider site-specific stewardship aspects in determining whether a project should move forward—an important consideration that we welcome. We are also encouraged that the Secretary intends to work closely with the Forest Service in his decisions and rely on the agency’s professional forest management expertise.

The current list of roadless areas is more than 25 years old. Under the Department’s new directive the country will have a much-needed opportunity to update and correct inaccuracies in the roadless area inventory. An updated inventory is needed to correct conflicting, erroneous, and outdated information so that future decisions can be made based on the current facts on the ground, not lines drawn on a map more than two decades ago and which, in some cases, have not been looked at since.

As the Administration reviews our nation’s policies for managing our National Forests, principles that should remain constant are a commitment to science, public input and transparency, and consideration for site-specific issues. Our nation will be best served not by a one-size-fits-all approach, but by policies that allow national forest management decisions to be based on each forest’s unique characteristics and local conditions.