Static Models, Dynamic Processes And The Tongass Land Management Plan
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Static Models, Dynamic Processes And The Tongass Land Management Plan as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,060
- Pages: 25
Static Models, Dynamic Processes and the Tongass Land Management Plan
Guy Robertson Research & Development US Forest Service Washington Office
Overview • Two Central Arguments – Static, deterministic (and complex) models don’t work in predicting futures for dynamic, stochastic systems – Adaptive management approaches are very difficult to implement in highly contentious planning environments
Overview • Strategy Comparison of ex ante predictions and ex post outcomes associated with the Tongass Land Management Plan in Southeast Alaska • General planning process • Economic Impact Analysis • Predicted harvest levels
Conclude with discussion of new FS planning rule
Tongass Land Management Plan • Part of a recurrent forest planning process stipulated by the NFMA • Subject to NEPA requiring an EIS • Anticipated a reduction of timber harvest • Highly contentious Framed as a classic conflict between jobs and the environment
Technocratic Planning Model Formal Process Within Agency IDT Produces NEPA Document
“Science”
FS Decision Maker
Public Participation
Decision
Deterministic Planning Model Nested within technocratic model Planning Alternatives LUDS Polygons On map
Direct Economic Impacts
Indirect Economic Impacts (IMPLAN)
Harvest Scheduling (FORPLAN)
Other Estimation Techniques (e.g. deer habitat model)
Outputs •Timber •Fish •Recreation •Wilderness •Etc.
Other Impacts
Decision Maker
Social Choice Planning Model
Broader Social Arena Formal Process
•Politics •Press •Public Opinion •Courts
Policy Outcome
TLMP Preferred Alternative: Called for a 200 million board foot (MMbf) reduction in harvest (down from previous average of 450 MMbf)
Projected Employment Impacts: per MMbf
@ -200 MMbf
Direct Employment
3.03
-607
Total employment (Multiplier = 2.93)
8.89
-1,778
What Actually Happened: Timber Harvest 120
Million Board feet
100
80
Offered Sold Harvested
60
40
20
0 2001
2002
2003
Markets didn’t cooperate…
2004
2005
What Actually Happened: Direct Employment
4,000
Plan “implemented” 3,500
3,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
1,052 Direct jobs lost since 1997
500
0 19 82 19 83 19 84 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05
Jobs
2,500
What about the indirect and Induced employment impacts? @ 2.93 total jobs per direct job, impacts would be on the order of: 1,052 x 2.93 = 3,082 jobs 52,000
51,000
Jobs
50,000
49,000
48,000
47,000
46,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Total Employment in SE Alaska
In Timber Production Counties? 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000
04 20
02 20
00 20
98 19
96 19
94 19
92 19
90 19
88 19
86 19
84 19
82 19
19
80
10,000
Total Employment in Ketchikan, Prince of Wales, and Wrangel
Yakutat 250
Employees
200 Basic 150 Non-Basic 100 50 0
Haines 900 800
Employees
700 Basic
600 500
Non-Basic
400
Evidence of Multipliers …?
300 200 100 0
Kake 250
Basic
150
Non-Basic
100
Year & Quarter
95.4
94.3
93.2
92.1
90.4
89.3
88.2
87.1
85.4
84.3
0
83.2
50
82.1
Employees
200
“Basic” and “Non-Basic” employment in selected communities
300
100
Angoon
50
200
0
100
-50
0
-100
-100 -200
-150 82
84
86
88
90
NONBASIC
300
92
94
96
150
Hollis
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
94
96
BASIC
Kake
100 50
0
Evidence of Multipliers …?
0
-100
-50
-200
-100
-300 82
84
86
88
90
NONBASIC
92
94
96
-150
82
84
BASIC
86
88
90
NONBASIC
120
Wrangell
92 BASIC
Yakutat
80
200
40
0
0
-200 -400
82
NONBASIC
100
400
-200
BASIC
200
-400
Gustavus
-40 82
84
86
88
NONBASIC
90
92 BASIC
94
96
-80
82
84
86
88
NONBASIC
90
92 BASIC
94
96
“Basic” and “NonBasic” employment in selected communities (first differenced)
Evidence of Multipliers …?
Regression Estimates of Multipliers with +/- 2 standard deviations
Gustavus
Kake
Hollis
Petersburg
Hoonah
Thorne Bay
Juneau
Haines
Hydaburg
Ketchikan
Wrangell
Sitka
Metlakatla
Angoon
Yakutat
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5
Evidence of Multipliers …? No But why? – Leakage – Labor inelasticity – Static models can’t predict dynamic systems…not even as approximations
So was the TLMP a Failure? No – Public information document – Reference to keep the debaters honest – Focus for social and legal debate • Current conditions • Projections
But not a success in the narrow technocratic decision model sense
So was the TLMP a Failure? Also numerous “setbacks” – 1999 New ROD released to address 33 TLMP Appeals. – 2001 1999 ROD vacated; 1997 ROD reinstated. – 2003 February 2003: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations Record of Decision. – 2005 Ninth Circuit Court claims inadequacies in NEPA procedures requires additional adjustments and updates of the Forest Plan (officially called a Forest Plan Amendment). – 2007 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed Forest Plan Amendment became available for public review
Reaffirms broader social arena as locus of decision making
So what to do? Adaptive Management – FS buzz word for at least ten years – Monitoring plan required in all planning exercises – Appx. $400 million for inventory and monitoring activities
But, in response to potential legal challenges – “Bullet proof” the plan – Check off the monitoring report as an afterthought
This is not a very flexible approach
New FS Planning Rule Vision
Strategy
Forest Level Long-term Collaborative
Project Level Short-term Collaborative
Design Criteria Forest Level Mid-scale Technical/Collaborative
Combined with EMS and third party monitoring Internalizes social choice dynamics through collaboration
New FS Planning Rule Aims to provide a flexible planning approach that avoids conflict and legal challenges FS argues that the “vision stage” is not subject to NEPA (EIS) as it does not involve actions on the ground Unclear if and how conflict will be arbitrated
However, the Rule itself was successfully challenged in 9th circuit owing to lack of EIS
Conclusion • Technocratic model is out of touch with reality – Failure to adequately predict – Decision locus not with the agency
• Communication and information flow more important than technique – Fancy models and false precision
Conclusion • Adaptive management problematic in conflict environment – From an agency perspective at least – From broader social perspective system may be adaptive, though cumbersome and expensive
• Anticipating a post-conflict future for public forest management in US
Guy Robertson Research & Development US Forest Service Washington Office
Overview • Two Central Arguments – Static, deterministic (and complex) models don’t work in predicting futures for dynamic, stochastic systems – Adaptive management approaches are very difficult to implement in highly contentious planning environments
Overview • Strategy Comparison of ex ante predictions and ex post outcomes associated with the Tongass Land Management Plan in Southeast Alaska • General planning process • Economic Impact Analysis • Predicted harvest levels
Conclude with discussion of new FS planning rule
Tongass Land Management Plan • Part of a recurrent forest planning process stipulated by the NFMA • Subject to NEPA requiring an EIS • Anticipated a reduction of timber harvest • Highly contentious Framed as a classic conflict between jobs and the environment
Technocratic Planning Model Formal Process Within Agency IDT Produces NEPA Document
“Science”
FS Decision Maker
Public Participation
Decision
Deterministic Planning Model Nested within technocratic model Planning Alternatives LUDS Polygons On map
Direct Economic Impacts
Indirect Economic Impacts (IMPLAN)
Harvest Scheduling (FORPLAN)
Other Estimation Techniques (e.g. deer habitat model)
Outputs •Timber •Fish •Recreation •Wilderness •Etc.
Other Impacts
Decision Maker
Social Choice Planning Model
Broader Social Arena Formal Process
•Politics •Press •Public Opinion •Courts
Policy Outcome
TLMP Preferred Alternative: Called for a 200 million board foot (MMbf) reduction in harvest (down from previous average of 450 MMbf)
Projected Employment Impacts: per MMbf
@ -200 MMbf
Direct Employment
3.03
-607
Total employment (Multiplier = 2.93)
8.89
-1,778
What Actually Happened: Timber Harvest 120
Million Board feet
100
80
Offered Sold Harvested
60
40
20
0 2001
2002
2003
Markets didn’t cooperate…
2004
2005
What Actually Happened: Direct Employment
4,000
Plan “implemented” 3,500
3,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
1,052 Direct jobs lost since 1997
500
0 19 82 19 83 19 84 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05
Jobs
2,500
What about the indirect and Induced employment impacts? @ 2.93 total jobs per direct job, impacts would be on the order of: 1,052 x 2.93 = 3,082 jobs 52,000
51,000
Jobs
50,000
49,000
48,000
47,000
46,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Total Employment in SE Alaska
In Timber Production Counties? 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000
04 20
02 20
00 20
98 19
96 19
94 19
92 19
90 19
88 19
86 19
84 19
82 19
19
80
10,000
Total Employment in Ketchikan, Prince of Wales, and Wrangel
Yakutat 250
Employees
200 Basic 150 Non-Basic 100 50 0
Haines 900 800
Employees
700 Basic
600 500
Non-Basic
400
Evidence of Multipliers …?
300 200 100 0
Kake 250
Basic
150
Non-Basic
100
Year & Quarter
95.4
94.3
93.2
92.1
90.4
89.3
88.2
87.1
85.4
84.3
0
83.2
50
82.1
Employees
200
“Basic” and “Non-Basic” employment in selected communities
300
100
Angoon
50
200
0
100
-50
0
-100
-100 -200
-150 82
84
86
88
90
NONBASIC
300
92
94
96
150
Hollis
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
94
96
BASIC
Kake
100 50
0
Evidence of Multipliers …?
0
-100
-50
-200
-100
-300 82
84
86
88
90
NONBASIC
92
94
96
-150
82
84
BASIC
86
88
90
NONBASIC
120
Wrangell
92 BASIC
Yakutat
80
200
40
0
0
-200 -400
82
NONBASIC
100
400
-200
BASIC
200
-400
Gustavus
-40 82
84
86
88
NONBASIC
90
92 BASIC
94
96
-80
82
84
86
88
NONBASIC
90
92 BASIC
94
96
“Basic” and “NonBasic” employment in selected communities (first differenced)
Evidence of Multipliers …?
Regression Estimates of Multipliers with +/- 2 standard deviations
Gustavus
Kake
Hollis
Petersburg
Hoonah
Thorne Bay
Juneau
Haines
Hydaburg
Ketchikan
Wrangell
Sitka
Metlakatla
Angoon
Yakutat
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5
Evidence of Multipliers …? No But why? – Leakage – Labor inelasticity – Static models can’t predict dynamic systems…not even as approximations
So was the TLMP a Failure? No – Public information document – Reference to keep the debaters honest – Focus for social and legal debate • Current conditions • Projections
But not a success in the narrow technocratic decision model sense
So was the TLMP a Failure? Also numerous “setbacks” – 1999 New ROD released to address 33 TLMP Appeals. – 2001 1999 ROD vacated; 1997 ROD reinstated. – 2003 February 2003: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations Record of Decision. – 2005 Ninth Circuit Court claims inadequacies in NEPA procedures requires additional adjustments and updates of the Forest Plan (officially called a Forest Plan Amendment). – 2007 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed Forest Plan Amendment became available for public review
Reaffirms broader social arena as locus of decision making
So what to do? Adaptive Management – FS buzz word for at least ten years – Monitoring plan required in all planning exercises – Appx. $400 million for inventory and monitoring activities
But, in response to potential legal challenges – “Bullet proof” the plan – Check off the monitoring report as an afterthought
This is not a very flexible approach
New FS Planning Rule Vision
Strategy
Forest Level Long-term Collaborative
Project Level Short-term Collaborative
Design Criteria Forest Level Mid-scale Technical/Collaborative
Combined with EMS and third party monitoring Internalizes social choice dynamics through collaboration
New FS Planning Rule Aims to provide a flexible planning approach that avoids conflict and legal challenges FS argues that the “vision stage” is not subject to NEPA (EIS) as it does not involve actions on the ground Unclear if and how conflict will be arbitrated
However, the Rule itself was successfully challenged in 9th circuit owing to lack of EIS
Conclusion • Technocratic model is out of touch with reality – Failure to adequately predict – Decision locus not with the agency
• Communication and information flow more important than technique – Fancy models and false precision
Conclusion • Adaptive management problematic in conflict environment – From an agency perspective at least – From broader social perspective system may be adaptive, though cumbersome and expensive
• Anticipating a post-conflict future for public forest management in US
Related Documents
Static And Dynamic Models Of Im
November 2019 1
Markov Processes And Learning Models
December 2019 25
Data Models And Management
November 2019 44
Management Models
July 2020 17
More Documents from "Bernard SCHAEFFER"
William Hall
April 2020 1
Annelise Carleton Hug
April 2020 5
Birnbaum_2006 Registration Summary
April 2020 9
