This Letter was sent to all US Senators on behalf of the Society of American Foresters

---

Dear Senator:

On behalf of the Society of American Foresters, I would like to take the opportunity to clarify some misconceptions regarding the Forest Service road program. I ask you to consider this clarification as you deliberate any amendments to the Interior appropriations bill that would eliminate or severely reduce funding levels for Forest Service road reconstruction and maintenance.

Critics of the Forest Service timber program are vigorously attacking its roads budget. As we understand it, several Senators plan to offer an amendment, or amendments, to the reduce funding for Forest Service road construction and maintenance, eliminate the purchaser road credit program, and to prevent entry into all roadless areas. We believe eliminating the budgetary support for road construction is a mistake that will ultimately result in the deterioration of the national forests, which in many parts of the country are under stress from several causes.

The roadless area issue is one best addressed through legislation other than appropriations. The appropriate management action for roadless areas should be addressed in individual forest plans. Although the Society of American Foresters believes in creating wilderness, Congress should not enter into wilderness designations lightly. There are roadless areas that need treatment to avoid catastrophic fire, loss of soil productivity and degradation of water quality, all of which can be addressed through forest management. Prohibiting entry in roadless areas eliminates the options of land managers.

Please keep the following in mind when such amendments come for a vote:

• Roads in forested areas allow access for the application of scientifically based forest practices designed to maintain or enhance the health of forest ecosystems. Roads provide access for fighting forest fires, pest outbreaks, and disease. Forest roads are the single most important infrastructure component that supports natural resource professionals in the maintenance of healthy forest ecosystems.

• Critics of the road budget contend that the national forest system contains more road mileage than the interstate highway system. Although this is true, it is an unfair comparison. Forest Service roads are predominantly single-lane aggregate or soil surface roads, where as the interstates are largely flat, straight, paved and four or more lanes. If one were to make a fair comparison, one should look at other forested lands. According to the Forest Service, all other major forest land owners have higher road densities per square mile than does the Forest Service. For example, major private timber company lands contain five to eight miles of road per square mile, where the national forest system, excluding wilderness areas, contains only 1.6 miles of road per square mile of forestland.

• Under the National Forest Management Act, each national forest must develop a management plan. The Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act requires that the Forest Service manage for six separate uses, all of which require roads and the maintenance of roads. To carry out the forest plans on the nation’s lands, the Forest Service has to have roads, and that requires a road budget for maintenance as well as construction. Critics of Forest Service road construction state it represents a subsidy for the forest products industry. This is not true. A 1997 report based on rigorous economic analysis from Price Waterhouse LLP concludes, "the Forest Roads Program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchasers."

• The primary use of roads in the national forest system is for recreation access. More people visit the national forests than the national parks by a factor of two. Each year Forest Service roads carry 76 million Americans to 121,000 miles of hiking trails, 96 Wild and Scenic Rivers, 120 National Scenic By-ways, 397 designated wilderness areas, and countless numbers of campgrounds, picnic areas, and special places the American people count on to enjoy their national forests.

• Severe cuts in the Forest Service’s road maintenance budget have forced the Forest Service to use the purchaser road credit program as the primary method of road maintenance and construction. The appropriations bill itself provides one pot of funding for road construction. However, almost the entire line item goes toward the reconstruction and repair of existing roads. This road maintenance is critical to helping maintain healthy forests. A road in a serious state of disrepair can be a critical forest health problem and can contribute to undesirable conditions far from forest borders.

Once again I ask you to consider this information when you deliberate on amendments that would eliminate or further reduce the Forest Service’s road budget allocation. If critics of the Forest Service wish to eliminate its timber program, the Society of American Foresters encourages a dialogue on the subject. This dialogue should include a discussion of not only the timber program, but threats to forest health, and the social and economic consequences of eliminating timber harvest on the national forests. However, as long as the Forest Service is a multiple-use agency, it will need roads and a road budget. Eliminating the road program severely curtails management flexibility and prevents the American people from enjoying their national forests for a variety of purposes. On behalf of the Society of American Foresters, I thank you for your consideration.