projects. Here a distinction is to be made be- 

 tween programs and projects. Programs spe- 

 cify an all-encompassing direction to be taken 

 by the Forest Service, such as policy state- 

 ments concerning issues of national (as op- 

 posed to local) importance. This is the process 

 that was largely responsible for the enactment 

 of the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield and the 

 National Environmental Policy Acts. On this 

 level the various public groups can most ef- 

 fectively express their wishes and affect agen- 

 cy policy. This is the proper role of the 

 "advocacy" process. 



What we have been saying is that the proc- 

 ess of advocacy can best serve the public in- 

 terest if used in the rulemaking or program 

 development area of agency decisionmaking. 

 Once the goal is specified (as elaborated in the 

 FOREST model), the advocacy process, in- 

 stead of being a clash of vested interest 

 groups, becomes an assessment of program 

 impact. It would bring about the marginal ad- 

 justments that may be needed when adequate 

 information is lacking at the stage of program 

 formulation. This is the kind of flexibility 

 called for in goal setting. When public involve- 

 ment is used in program areas, the agency be- 

 comes relatively free to apply its expertise to 

 project evaluation (for example, specific tim- 

 ber sales or recreation developments). The 

 constant necessity of dealing with local or 

 other interest groups is diminished, and 

 "special pleading later on [shows] up clearly 

 as an attempt to gain exception from general 

 policies already agreed upon . . ." 80 



In the area of public appeal from agency 

 decisions, the FOREST model should provide 

 a useful base for constructive challenge. Be- 

 cause it is drawn from the legislation, particu- 

 larly the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act 

 and the National Environmental Protection 

 Act, it can help to insure compliance with the 

 law. Use of the model requires that all feasible 

 alternatives be reviewed and considered. If the 

 model is faithfully adhered to, the public 

 should have no ground for raising this issue in 

 the courts. 



The Forest Service is already making prog- 



80 Marglin (1967), p. 19. See also Freeman (1969), 

 p. 169. 



ress in meeting its legal requirements in this 

 area, as indicated in the incorporation of eco- 

 nomic analysis and program level alternatives 

 in the resource inventories. Perhaps one of the 

 best examples is the multidisciplined study 

 being conducted in the Larch Mountain-Bull 

 Run area of the Mt. Hood National Forest. 



The approach being taken by the study 

 team, which includes a landscape architect 

 (who also represents recreational activity), a 

 silviculturist, a civil engineer, and a logging 

 engineer, is to ask the fundamental question, 

 How best can this area be used? The team was 

 directed to study and evaluate alternatives for 

 the study area and attempt to consider all 

 actions feasible in terms of what the land will 

 support. 



Drawing from its common pool of data, 

 the team and its assistants broke itself into 

 three subteams. Each, paying no attention to 

 the other two, decided how it would manage 

 the Larch Mountain-Bull Run area if the dom- 

 inant use was recreation (timber, water) and 

 all else was secondary. The result was three al- 

 ternate plans, each mapped and zoned in care- 

 ful detail. Only in one small portion — a 

 watershed supplying the community of 

 Corbett on the Columbia River — were the 

 three plans fairly unanimous. In a final step, a 

 fourth alternative was produced which, in the 

 consensus of its drafters, embodied the best 

 features of all three plans. 81 



Although the study is not completed, it 

 does suggest one useful approach to the recog- 

 nition of the legal requirement to investigate 

 alternative uses of the land. The "dominant- 

 subordinate" approach taken does not seem 

 appropriate to the task, however. The "total 

 environment" approach suggested by the 

 FOREST model would dictate that all re- 

 sources be considered in the early planning 

 stages. Nevertheless, this type of policy for- 

 mulation is certainly an improvement over 

 some of the methods used in the past, and 

 could be channeled with relative ease toward 

 a greater emphasis on the total FOREST. 

 More important in the short run is the fact 

 that such efforts may well prevent unneces- 

 sary and costly court action. 



81 "Something new in forest planning," Colum- 

 bian, Vancouver, Washington, July 9, 1971. 



68 



