guy robertson

8/14/2019 Guy Robertson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/guy-robertson 1/25

Static Models, DynamicProcesses and the TongassLand Management Plan

Guy Robertson

Research & DevelopmentUS Forest ServiceWashington 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 contentiousplanning environments



Overview

• Strategy

Comparison of ex ante predictions and ex postoutcomes 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 planningrule



Tongass Land Management Plan

• Part of a recurrent forest planning processstipulated by the NFMA

• Subject to NEPA requiring an EIS

• Anticipated a reduction of timber harvest

• Highly contentious

Framed as a classic conflict between jobs andthe environment



Technocratic Planning Model

IDT Produces

NEPA Document

FS Decision

Maker Decision

Within Agency

“Science” Public

Participation

Formal Process



Deterministic Planning ModelNested within technocratic model

LUDSPolygons

On map

HarvestScheduling

(FORPLAN)

Other Estimation Techniques(e.g. deer habitat model)

Planning

Alternatives

Outputs•Timber

•Fish

•Recreation•Wilderness

•Etc.

Direct Economic

Impacts

Other Impacts

Indirect Economic

Impacts(IMPLAN)

Decision

Maker



Social Choice Planning Model

Formal Process

Broader Social Arena•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:

-1,7788.89Total employment (Multiplier = 2.93)

-6073.03Direct Employment

@ -200

MMbf

per

MMbf



What Actually Happened:Timber Harvest

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

M i l l i o n B o a r d f

Offered

Sold

Harvested

Markets didn’t cooperate…



What Actually Happened: Direct Employment

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1 9 8 2

1 9 8 3

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 8

1 9 8 9

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

J o b

Plan “implemented”

1,052 Direct jobslost since 1997



What about the indirect and

Induced employment impacts?

@ 2.93 total jobs per direct job, impactswould be on the order of:

1,052 x 2.93 = 3,082 jobs

46,000

47,000

48,000

49,000

50,000

51,000

52,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

J o b

Total Employment in SE Alaska



In Timber Production Counties?

Total Employment in Ketchikan, Prince of Wales, and Wrangel

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

17,000

18,000

19,000

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 2

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 8

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 8

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 4



“Basic” and“Non-Basic”employment inselected

communities

Kake

0

50

100

150

200

250

8

2 .

1

8

3 .

2

8

4 .

3

8

5 .

4

8

7 .

1

8

8 .

2

8

9 .

3

9

0 .

4

9

2 .

1

9

3 .

2

9

4 .

3

9

5 .

4

Year & Quarter

E m p l o y e e Basic

Non-Basic

Haines

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

E m p l o y e e Basic

Non-Basic

Yakutat

0

50

100

150

200

250

E m p

l o y e e

Basic

Non-Basic

Evidence of

Multipliers

…?



“Basic” and “Non-Basic”employment inselectedcommunities (first

differenced)

Evidence of

Multipliers

…?

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

NONBASIC BASIC

Angoon

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

NONB ASI C B ASI C

Gustavus

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

NONBASIC BASIC

Hollis

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

NONB ASI C B ASI C

Kake

-400

-200

0

200

400

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

NONBASIC BASIC

Wrangell

-80

-40

0

40

80

120

82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96

NONB ASI C B ASI C

Yakutat



Regression Estimates of Multipliers with+/- 2 standard deviations

Evidence of Multipliers

…?

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Y a k u

t a t

A n g o

o n

M e t l a k a t l a

S i t k a

W r a n g e l l

K e t c h i

k a n

H y

d a b u r g

H a i n

e s

J u n e a u

T h o r n e B

a y

H o o n

a h

P e t e r s b u r g

H o

l l i s

K a k e

G u s t a v u s



Evidence of Multipliers

…?No

But why?

– Leakage

– Labor inelasticity

– Static models can’t predict dynamicsystems…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

• ProjectionsBut 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 proceduresrequires additional adjustments and updates of the Forest Plan (officiallycalled a Forest Plan Amendment).

– 2007 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed ForestPlan 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

Strategy Design CriteriaVision

Forest Level

Long-term

Collaborative

Project Level

Short-term

Collaborative

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 legalchallenges

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 withreality

– 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 inconflict 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

Documents