The model is definite in its implications. It 

 indicates that the agency does not have a large 

 number of different goals. Rather, a single 

 goal calls for those actions by which the great- 

 est total value will be derived from the Na- 

 tional Forests. Since the actual value of any 

 of the resources is determined in part by the 

 output of the other resources — for example, 

 the benefits derived from watershed are func- 

 tionally related to the size and method of tim- 

 ber harvest — the total value will not neces- 

 sarily be maximized by the attempt to maxi- 

 mize each of the resources independently. 

 The model emphasizes that we are working 

 with alternatives of individual resource man- 

 agement within alternatives of land use — 

 wheels within wheels. By calling for the maxi- 

 mized sum of separately identified resource 

 values, the model recognizes that in actual 

 practice each resource will necessarily be sep- 

 arately managed to some extent. But the legis- 

 lation calls for the integration of such man- 

 agement efforts to insure that all independent 

 decisions, taken together, achieve the desired 

 result. The legislation thus calls for the total 

 value of FOREST to be maximized, the value 

 of each individual resource being considered 

 only within its ecological setting. This general 

 equilibrium requirement of the legislation is 

 difficult to put into practice. For the most 

 part, as will be seen in later discussions, the 

 agency now aims at partial equilibrium solu- 

 tions that stress the maximization of value, 

 use, or production of each resource separate- 

 ly. This is not consistent with the mandate 

 given to the agency. 



The FOREST model is limited to National 

 Forest administration, and thus ignores much 

 of the activity within the agency as it relates 

 to some areas of research and to State and 

 private cooperation and other activities. For 

 obvious reasons, the discussion of the model 

 brushes lightly over certain issues that are sub- 

 ject to debate among specialists, such as the 

 correct interpretation of this or that provision 

 in the legislation — specifically, alternative for- 

 mulations of the implications contained in 

 the sustained yield provisions of the law. The 

 model embodies some arbitrary decisions on 

 the expression of certain considerations. An 

 illustration is the treatment of the Wilderness 

 Act of 1964. 



The question might well be asked, Where 

 are wilderness values in the stipulated goal? In 

 order to make the model as manageable as 

 possible, I chose to reflect wilderness values as 

 contained in the other specified resources. 

 Various values inherent in wilderness areas are 

 thus considered to be represented in outdoor 

 recreation, in environmental amenities, in soil 

 and watershed, and in fish and wildlife. From 

 another viewpoint, wilderness might be seen 

 not as six resources but rather as one resource 

 containing those six resources and others — 

 the FOREST, an entity, in which the resources 

 have no value apart from the wilderness itself. 

 By treating the wilderness as spread out 

 among the various renewable surface re- 

 sources, the FOREST model does not ade- 

 quately take account of the nonrenewability 

 of a virgin forest or wilderness. Nevertheless, 

 for descriptive purposes this treatment was 

 deemed warranted. 



Other resources may come to mind that 

 are not spelled out in the model, such as min- 

 erals within the National Forest boundaries. 

 The review of legislation made clear that min- 

 erals are not directly or adequately control- 

 lable under the current Forest Service direc- 

 tives. This situation might well be altered in 

 the near future, but it seemed inappropriate 

 to include minerals in a management decision 

 model based on the existing legislation. 



A further example of choice between pos- 

 sible approaches is the treatment of environ- 

 mental amenities (E). As stated, each of the 

 resources in the goal is identified in the 

 MU-SY Act, with the exception of environ- 

 mental amenities, which although alluded to 

 or implied in much of the earlier legislation, 

 were not given specific recognition until the 

 passage of the NEPA. It would not have been 

 unwarranted to treat the environment as an 

 all-encompassing term, rather than as a sepa- 

 rate resource, thus expressing the intent of the 

 NEPA with respect to interagency coopera- 

 tion. With this in mind, the NEPA might be 

 interpreted as calling for the maximization of 

 the value of the urban, or agricultural, or 

 oceanic environments, etor-This treatment did 

 not fit well, however, into an analysis of the 

 responsibility for the limited area of National 

 Forest administration. The reader will un- 

 doubtedly find other instances of choice 



38 



