States and others for access, determinations of 

 the shares of costs to be born by the United 

 States and the cooperating parties will include 

 consideration of: (l)The standard of road re- 

 quired for the planned hauling; (2) the share of 

 the planned use; (3) the location and volume of 

 tributary timber owned by each party and ex- 

 pected to be hauled over the road or roads; 

 (4) the tributary areas owned or controlled by 

 each party; (5) expected use by the public; and 

 (6) other appropriate considerations. 65 



Bayles (p. 117) argues that "this provision 

 does not provide adequate guidelines for the 

 cooperators and regional foresters to use in 

 negotiating." No indication is given of the val- 

 ue to be assigned public recreation use, nor of 

 the extent to which the Forest Service is to 

 consider "recreation, mining, grazing, water- 

 shed management and other uses of the forest 

 lands as 'substantial planned uses.' " Bayles 

 concludes that the regulation "would seem to 

 give negotiators nothing more than a nebulous 

 beginning and would undoubtedly result in 

 widely varying solutions rather than the estab- 

 lishment of norms which would aid the proc- 

 ess of negotiation." 



Other instances of inadequate guidelines in 

 the regulations have been suggested during the 

 course of this study in conversations with law- 

 yers. In the absence of an overriding goal such 

 as that contained in the FOREST model, 

 many agencies and departments have adopted 

 the mechanism of the Code of Federal Regu- 

 lations to provide specific direction. In con- 

 trast to the Department of Interior, for exam- 

 ple, which has volumes of regulations, the De- 

 partment of Agriculture (especially for Forest 

 Service activities) uses this mechanism only 

 rarely. The current volume of the Code of 

 Federal Regulations (1970) defines in part the 

 Forest Service role under the subjects of or- 

 ganization; functions and procedures; admin- 

 istration; administration of the forest develop- 

 ment transportation system; administration of 

 lands under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones 

 Farm Tenant Act by the Forest Service; tim- 

 ber; grazing; wildlife; land uses; trespass; use 

 of "Smokey Bear" symbol; and land disposal. 

 "These regulations have the force and effect 

 of law and are binding upon the Forest Serv- 

 ice as well as upon the public." 



36 C.F.R. 212.11(c) (Supp. 1970). 



Surprisingly, nothing in these regulations 

 directly or specifically refers to multiple use 

 management or to sustained yield considera- 

 tions. Thus, there is apparently no particular 

 form for the making of multiple use decisions 

 beyond any contained in the Forest Service 

 Manual. There is definitely no approximation 

 to the kind of directives or regulations im- 

 plied in the FOREST model. At least one law- 

 yer has contended that the Forest Service has 

 failed to comply with the Public Information 

 Act and that in future litigation, the lack of 

 regulations will force the court to interpret 

 the Manual as filling that lack. That is, Forest 

 Service statements of intention to perform 

 certain actions in the decisionmaking process 

 become binding in the absence of official reg- 

 ulations (personal communication, Dean 

 Gardner). 



Public I nvol venient in 

 Weight Setting 



The opinions of the public, individually 

 and in groups, may affect weight setting both 

 directly and indirectly. The current effort to 

 include the local public in decisionmaking is 

 to some extent the result of public criticism 

 of the Service for activities such as clearcut- 

 ting and roadbuilding in certain areas. It 

 seems evident, however, that the responsibil- 

 ity for involving the public is not as clearly 

 defined as present agency interpretation 

 would suggest. 



Conversations with National Forest admin- 

 istrators (especially Forest Supervisors) in the 

 course of this study indicate that they believe 

 public involvement is important to agency 

 public relations. Beyond this basic agreement, 

 however, differences of opinion exist. Some 

 Forest Supervisors showed a desire to seek ad- 

 vice from the public as to priorities in the ini- 

 tial stages of the investigatory process, as in 

 the formulation of District or Forest level 

 multiple use plans. Others, however, felt that 

 agency expertise should be dominant in the 

 policy formulation process, and the public 

 consulted primarily for information. These 

 foresters felt that if the agency could simply 

 present clearly the decisions that had been 

 reached, and provide the local public with the 1 



51 



