.
United States Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
Tongass National Forest
Forest Plan Interdisciplinary Team
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-8796
Reply to:
Date: February 21, 1996
Subject:
Socioeconomic panel results
To:
Bruce Rene, Document Coordinator, TLMP
cc:
Terry Shaw, Steve Kessler, Co Team Managers, TLMP
From:
Guy Cellier, Social Scientist, TLMP
Introduction
On November 7 and 8, 1995, a panel of social scientists met to offer professional
judgement regarding the effects of implementing proposed TLMP alternatives on 32
selected communities of Southeast Alaska. This memo documents the background
information supplied to the panelists, and summarizes the results of the panel’s work.
Background material
Panelists were provided verbal, written and graphical information concerning
resources and management of the Tongass National Forest (Tongass).
The following talks were delivered to the panel, although the first two (below) were
voluntary, and not all panelists attended. The next three, however, were heard by all of
the panel:
l
Human history of Alaska and the laws since 1959 affecting the Tongass, by Jim
Case, Alaska Marine Highway;
l
Ecology of the Tongass, by Michael McClellan, Forestry Sciences Laboratory (FSL);
l
Forest Planning Process, by Bruce Rene, TLMP;
l
Description of the Alternatives, by Chris Iverson, TLMP/Regional Office;
l
Description of the Panel Rating Process, by Terry Shaw, FSL/TLMP.
The following written materials were made available to panelists:
l
TLMP Framework for Development of Draft Alternatives (handout);
l
Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (11/6/95 draft);
l
List of the 32 communities to be covered by the analysis;
l
Draft community profiles that will be part of the Chapter 3 Affected Environment
section;
Socioeconomic panel of 7/8 Nov. 1995 Results - page 1 - (c:\guy\panel\results2)
FACILITATOR:
Jobs were seen as a key factor with the general public, as well as
with the legislators. Panelists should consider type of job,
seasonality, value of employment, resident versus non-resident as a
value to the community. The panel would be provided with a
range of Allowable Sales Quantity (ASQ) numbers for each
alternative, but no quantitative analysis.
BEFORE:
Panelists felt that the term ”jobs” was not descriptive enough, and
they would rather consider employment in a more general sense,
given that total numbers of jobs within a community could
decrease, but value to the community could increase, i.e. more an
indication of an improving economy in a particular sector.
Fishing job numbers may not be affected but the quantity and
therefore value of a catch may be affected.
AFTER:
Panelists considered whether or not a community supported
timber employment now, and whether a particular alternative
offered more timber (according to the ASQs) in the future than the
status quo.
Some panelists felt that protecting habitat and streams could cause
them to indicate an up-arrow, i.e. more fishing jobs. Similarly,
they would indicate a down arrow for fishing employment with a
high timber harvest.
Tourism/recreation employment was seen by more than one
panelist to be inversely proportional to the ASQ under the
assumption that tourists will not come to see clearcuts. The tenyear planning horizon for the panel was seen as a problem, with
panelists unsure as to whether or not effects on tourism/recreation
would be felt in this time.
For mining employment, panelists saw no likely change resulting .
from any of the alternatives, given their understanding that mining
access was guaranteed and could not be influenced by TLMP.
Economic structure/diversity
[Consider the structure of the community and how it might change due to the
alternative. Is the community’s economy dependent on one resource or many? Is
the prevalent economic base well diversified, and how is this likely to be affected by
this alternative?]
FACILITATOR:
The panel should not be judging whether or not a community
ought to exist or continue in a particular place, merely the likely
effect of each particular alternative.
BEFORE:
No discussion.
Socioeconomic panel of 7/8 Nov. 1995 Results - page 4 - (c:\guy\panei\resultsS)
AFTER:
At least one panelist felt that structure and diversity within a
community could increase and improve if timber harvesting went
down, and a community were thereby forced to diversify and
possibly get into more sustainable, long-term opportunities.
However, another panelist saw this as illogical, arguing that
structure was a derivitive of linkages and multipliers, which could
be lost if jobs in any sector were lost This panelist felt that the
structure of the community was something already established,
and therefore maintaining the status quo was desirable.
Diversity was seen as a question of balance--not having all your
eggs in one basket, Also being able to keep money within a
community by having a sufficient array of goods and services there
to satisfy demand, and leading to increased multipliers.
Community stability
[How will this alternative affect the current stability within the community, based
on your knowledge of what this stability is based on.]
FACILITATOR:
Is this a strong community, diverse? Is it already in some decline?
What is it’s history?
BEFORE:
No discussion
AFTER:
Some panelists felt that a longer rotation (200 years in Alt 5) would
lead to more economic diversity and stability. At least two
panelists saw the 200 year rotation as having a number of positive
associations.
In discussion about Ketchikan, one panelist saw that loss of tmber
jobs (under some alternatives) would result in a lack of stability for
the community. In this regard, even though Alt. 5 might lead to
long-term diversity and stability, in the short-term (ten years) this *
would mean instability for the community.
Quality of life
[What constitutes the most important quality of life issues for this community, and
how could they be affected by this alternative?]
FACILITATOR:
Very broad--could include community structure, clean air and
water quality, among other things. The panelist should not be
making judgement calls on what any community sees as its
prefered lifestyle. Rather, they are considering likely effects on a
chosen lifestyle due to each particular alternative.
BEFORE:
No discussion
Socioeconomic panel of 7/8 Nov. 1995 Results - page 5 - (c:\guy\panel\results2)
-
.
AFTER:
One panelist felt that quality of life and a traditional chosen
lifestvle was only possible if the person/people involved could
afford to live there, therefore employment was the critical factor.
Recreation opportunities
[Are recreation opportunities likely to be affected by this alternative? Consider
access, quality of the opportunity, travel time, increased road density and
competition.]
FACILITATOR:
Consider roads, home ranges, likely competition.
BEFORE:
No discussion
AFTER:
Alt 1 was seen as a maximum recreation alternative, particularly
for remote recreation oppotunities. Alt 7 was one of the
alternatives on the other end of the spectrum, and Alt 5 was a mix
of utilizing resources and allowing for recreation opportunities.
Panelists saw LUDS allowing greater timber harvest around
communities as generally detrimental to recreation opportunities
for that community. However, it was also pointed out that logging
could increase access, and therefore tourism--it would merely be
different type of tourism--possibly more vehicles, R.V.s, etc.
Smaller beach fringes were also seen as detrimental to recreation
by some of the panelists.
Access to traditional lifestyle
[People in Southeast Alaska have many different requirements for maintaining their
particular chosen lifestyle. While this indicator category overlaps with some of the
others above, are there additional unique lifestyle aspects which may be enhanced
.
(up arrow) or diminished (down arrow) by this alternative?]
FACILITATOR:
This indicator has less to do with subsistence and more to do with
whatever a particular community may choose for itself. However,
a community that is a large subsistence user should be considered
as such when this issue is considered.
BEFORE:
No discussion
AFTER:
Some panelists felt that lifestyle was close to quality of life, and
that less timber harvest would result in more recreation, more
subsistence, more fish and wildlife. Access to the forest and
resources as a component of lifestyle was unlikely to be greatly
affected by any alternative.
Socioeconomic panel of 7/8 NOV. 1995 Results - page 6 - (c:\guy\panel\results2)
There was also some discussion about economic opportunities
through access to the forest. These may be unrelated to logging, or
entirely dependent on logging and yet still be considered a
traditional lifestyle.
General conclusions
The panelists were comfortable that the array of indicators was sufficient to cover
general socioeconomic issues within communities, although they would like to see
what the communities themselves made of the indicators.
When asked whether or not the nine alternatives seemed to offer a good array from a
social-science perspective, the panelists ail felt that they did, or at least could not offer
any immediate suggestions for improvements.
There was some discussion as to where to start--which alternative. One panelist felt
that Alternative 9 (the current plan) would be a logical place, and the results of 9 could
all be straight lines (showing no change expected). However, with discussion, it was
evident that as the planning horizon for this exercise was ten years, there could indeed
be changes under each alternative. It was therefore decided to simply work through
each alternative (1 to 9) for each community.
The highest cut alternative was seen by some to merely continue a short-term
dependency on one resource (timber), although going to the least cut alternative would
be detrimental to communities and people with timber jobs.
Panelists felt that their familiarity with a particular community was very important.
They were better able to score a community, and felt more comfortable with their own
judgement if they knew the community and the issues within that community.
Panelists were asked to choose a “best” alternative for each community. However, this
was not consistently done, and is therefore not reflected here.
There was some discussion as to which altenative might be considered a “middle of the 1
road” alternative. At least one panelist saw Alt 5 is being in the middle, but another
saw Alt 2 as being closer to the middle. No general conclusion was reached.
Socioeconomic panel of 7/8 Nov. 1995 Results - page 7 - (c:\guy\panel\results2)
TLMP
SILENT
Social
SILENT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC
OBSERVER'S
PANEL
COMMENTS
Geneen Granger
Science Coordinator
RO, EPB
OBSERVER
My job as "silent observer" was to observe the entire panel process and
evaluate the objectivity of the process and the individuals participating.
PANEL
The Panel consisted of Guy Cellier (Facilitator), Julie Schaefers (Scribe), and
5 Evaluators with knowledge and experience in SE Alaska socio-economic
conditions (below). The Planning Staff Officers from the three Tongass
Administrative Areas served as resource specialists for their area.
- Linda Kruger - FSL, Seattle, Research Social Scientist
- Peter Frere - Local Govt. Specialist, AK State Dept of Community and Regional
Affairs.
- Kristen Tromble - Research and Analysis, AK Dept of Labor
- Tony Nakazawa - Alaska Cooperative Extension, Assoc. Prof of Extension
Economics
- Tom Gallagher - Prof at UAS, Natural Resource Admin and Policy
PANEL PROCESS
During the morning of the first day, everyone involved in all the panels
listened to presentations on Forest Service planning, history of the TLMP to
date, and elements of the 9 TLMP alternatives being considered.
In the
afternoon panel members went to their separate topic rooms to begin the
process.
Our Facilitator began with introductions of the panel members.
I know the
Facilitator and Scribe, and had briefly met one of the evaluators on one
occasion.
The Facilitator then described the rating system to be used which consisted of
up or down arrows, or a line for no change, or a ? for unsure, to describe the
differences between alternatives. All of the Evaluators had basic questions,
such as what time span was covered, was Alternative 9 the baseline, etc.
COMMUNITY
RATINGS
The Ketchikan Area was first. The Planning Staff Officer (PSO) described one
town at a time, then the Evaluators rated the alternatives. No discussion was
allowed during the ratings.
After the first round, the Scribe mentioned that it would be easier for her to
figure ratings if the Evaluators used "D" instead of a down arrow, and "U"
instead of an up arrow. The Facilitator said that was ok, but did not ask the
Evaluators what they thought.
I thought that the PSO's descriptions of the towns included some value
judgements that might affect the ratings and told the Facilitator. 'He agreed,
and mentioned to the Ketchikan PSO that he should keep comments to facts, and
not so much opinion. The PSO immediately changed his style of presentation.
The Stikine and Chatham Area PSOs followed. They were careful to make neutral
descriptions of the towns. At one point the Facilitator brought up that there
were community descriptions in their folders they could also look at. About
half way through the Facilitator led a discussion on factors they were each
using to rate to check to see if they were on the same track. Everyone seemed
to be using the same type of criteria to rate, although there were naturally
some differences based on experience (e.g., one thought jobs were more
important than someone else did).
The last 8 Ketchikan communities were lumped together because the PSO had to
leave, The Facilitator did not ask the Evaluators' opinion on this decision.
EVALUATORS'
OBJECTIVITY
I did not witness any lack of objectivity on anyone's part.
They each were
very open and respectful of each other's opinions and right to speak. No
person dominated the group's discussion, no one tried to dissuade anyone from
their opinion, no one put anyone down for their opinion, no one challenged
anyone, no one was rude. They were all fairly quiet in their opinions, using
their personal knowledge or background to fill in the blanks where needed in
community descriptions. They all had good knowledge of SE Alaska, the
communities, and socio-economic conditions, although none seemed to be very
knowledgeable about Forest Service planning and budget processes. Two of the
Evaluators were more talkative than the other three, but definitely did not
dominate. The other three just tended to be quieter, but spoke when they had
something to contribute. One of the three did not contribute much, but I could
tell she was involved and listening by her mannerisms. When asked by the
Facilitator if she had anything to say, she usually said "no" or that she
"agreed with what was being said." They all got up frequently to look at the
maps after the discussions; one often got up during the discussion.
FACILITATOR'S
OBJECTIVIITY
I thought he did a very good job of leading the group through the process,
which no one was familiar with or had used before. He ensured that everyone
had a chance to ask questions and offer information, letting the group lead
their own discussions. He asked the quieter ones if they had anything to say
when they hadn't spoken, but didn't push. There never was a need to tell
anyone to be quiet. Occasionally he had to cut discussions short due to the
lack of time, but only when it had gotten off track, not during any important
discussion.
SUGGESTIONS
I suggest that the Facilitator query the group before making any decisions that
affect the group, such as change in way of rating (arrows vs. letters).
I also suggest that there be two scribes -- one for just taking notes, and one
for collecting and compiling and printing the ratings. Taking notes and
compiling ratings seemed like too much for one person to do. Sometimes the
group started discussing while the Scribe was still trying to do the ratings.