I guess that's why things like recycling and wood preservation engineering are so attractive. The cost issue is being used as a means to get at other issues. Although we may want to provide jobs in small communities, even if all agreed it would be a good thing, or build a campground, it may not be the best thing to do given other government priorities. The test of whether it is worthy is to defend it before all comers. For timber production, or subsidies to small communities, the Forest Service has not been able to sell the program.
Lets move on and see what service the public does want.
There's a part where is says the NFs are to be managed to produce a mix of goods and services that best meets the needs of the American people. After that, it says that the mix of goods and services shall not necessarily be a mix that brings in the greatest dollar return. Congress recognizes the FS is not necessarily a profit making agency. When benefits don't appear to exceed costs or when the costs are borne by many and the benefits accrue to a few, it is natural that many will question whether those programs do contribute to the general welfare. Since economic analyses cannot capture all costs and benefits, however, the ultimate decisions remain political.