Post on 16-Jan-2016
transcript
(c) 1998 by Peter Berck 1
Why are the Uses Multiple
By Peter BerckUniversity of California,Berkeley
2
Goals
This is the story of shifting goals and the effect they have on multiple use planning.
Planning history in PNWPolitics and PlanningImplications for planning
Stochastic Mapping
3
Multiple Use is Unavoidable
Water quantity insensitive to management but quality can be affected by management
Recreationalists can’t be excluded but can be encouraged with facilities
Wildlife lives there anyway but clearcuts favor game; no cuts favor owls
4
Multiple Use: Which Use Shall Be Master
American Politics drives multiple use management in the forests of the West.
There are three distinct political and management regimes: Pre, During, and Post Owl
Management tools adapt to the politicsManagement plans adapt to the politics:
Does the planner matter?
5
Postwar and Pre-Owl
Political agreement on timberInformal tools--discretion
6
Planning: Old Style
Planner professional
forester knowledge of
resource
Owner preferences over
uses supplies capital
Planning job determine
preferences determine budget find best plan among
feasible plans easily amenable to
programming formulation, but there was no need to do so!
7
The Catch
The catch was that there needed to be an owner. A close substitute would be wide consensus on the appropriate goals and a political willingness to let the planner determine the goals within that consensus.
Before ~1970, management of the Forests was not so contentious.
8
Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960
Multiple Uses recreation range timber watershed wildlife fish
(later wilderness is added)
No one use is to predominate
“High level annual … output
without impairment of the productivity of the land”
9
Agency Freedom
The USFS had ample latitude to operate forests as it wished under MUSY of 1960.
The act codified what USFS was doing anyway.
The Agency was trusted and political consensus was pretty high.
This was easy because there were substantial areas untouched by cutting.
10
Old Stated Objectives
Community Stability: JOBS coincident with mill
profits
Supply of Fiber (that’s wood)
Recreation Game and Fish Scenic Drives Hiking
Went together: More wood is more
jobs is more open forest is more game
11
Wilderness Act (1964)
FS had designated wilderness on its own and was now constrained by law on those areas.
Forced to study additional lands for inclusion.
Large single purpose reserves went against the Multiple Use grain.
The Planner would not decide which lands to reserve
12
Politics and Formalized Planning
Oddly played out through acts thought to innocuous or planning acts National Environmental Policy Act Endangered Species Act Resource Planning Act
13
NEPA
Before a major federal action can be taken, the agency must Get public comment on issues to be
consideredMake a plan (Environmental Impact
Statement) and several alternative plansGet public comment on the plansChoose a preferred alternative
This was not thought to be radical legislation.
14
Resource Planning Act (‘74)
Resource assessment at the National level
Targets for Regions and ForestsPlans to meet those targetsThis act was a way for the FS to get
long term agreement by Congress on goals and for the Industry to get a clear mandate to produce wood.
15
RPA Didn’t work
Environmentalists wanted more wildland than the FS was planning for.
Monongahela Decision: Resurrected language in 100 year old law that made it necessary to consider each tree before cutting.
Clear need for new legislation
16
National Forest Management Act (1976)
Political compromise Non-declining flow
meant to preserve oldgrowthwould only delay cut out
CMAImeant to put teeth into sustained yieldecologically meaningless: trees still too
small
17
Endangered Species Act
Can’t take animal, even on private land Take includes remove habitat Must list habitat to be protected Leads to legal question: when does
regulation become confiscation of property?Current answer is when no economic use
possible
18
Participation
RPA Interdisciplinary Teams (Regs. Restored
supervisors power) Public comment Full written disclosure to public
ESA Public right to sue to protect animals
Public could see and could sue
19
Formal Planning
Under NFMA and RPA, formal planning for multiple use was carried out by linear programming.
The basic idea was to maximize present value of timber, subject to CMAI, non-declining flow, and other constraints.
The Spotted Owl became the most celebrated constraint
20
SimpleForest Planning
Type of Site, jMany “birthdays”hj(t,s)
t is calendar time s is birthday of stand h is acres harvested
Dj(t-s) is volume per acre
v(t) is cut at tv=j s Dj(t-s) hj(t,
s)Max present value
of P times V
s.t. biologyv(t+1) v(t)t-s > CMAI or h = 0
21
Biology
Initial Acres = Cut over all time Aj(s) = t hj(t,s)
W is what is left standing wj(s,t) = Aj(s) - t hj(t,s)
or =s hj(t,s) - a hj(a,t)
Cut acres regrow and are recut s hj(t,s) = a hj(a,t)
This is Johnson and Scheurman, Model II.
22
More meaning to the model
Types of sites, j different species site classes critical locations
near streamsvisual buffers
More Constraints Don’t cut type j Keep N% of forest
at age, t-s, > 100constraint on w
More treatments commercial thin pre-commercial
thin
23
Traditional Problems with Planning
Find the Cut Plans were not
spatial Foresters still had to
designate specific parcels to be cut
Hard to see cumulative effect of decisions because of mapping technology
The problem (Hrubes) The cuttable land base
was much smaller than the planned land base because of streams, Indian burial grounds, needed habitat, etc.
Difference only discovered when “finding the cut”
24
Allowable Cut Effect
To get nondeclining flow cut oldgrowth now plan to cut
unprofitable trees later When later comes,
make new plan and don’t cut remote trees
Thus cut declines under non-declining constraint.
Industry likes this. They get more wood
Environmentalists hate this. They see oldgrowth cut down sooner.
It is an example of “no commitment”
25
Forest Plans Took Forever
Not innocent: Old plans used while waiting. Once it was clear that the plans would
call for less timber, industry and Republican administration did not want plans to be final
Environmentalists obliged by obstructing plans for their goals.
(graphic on how much plans did to cut)
26
Semi-primitive
WILD AND SCENIC RIVER
RECREATION AREA
Visual retention
Private Land
Timber emphasis
Bald eagle habitat
Goshawk habitat
Spotted owl habitat
Partial Visual ret.
Minimal management
Owl Lead-up
FS released draft EIS on owl in August of 1986, 5% cut reduction
Final EIS April 1988, little less than 5% ASQ reduction
But, this wasn’t enough to comply with the law to protect the Owl, which wasn’t even yet officially “threatened”
http://www.sweet-home.or.us/forest/owl/index.html
28
Injunction
March, 1989. Order restraining the FS from offering 139 planned sales.
Yaffee (Wisdom of the Spotted Owl) takes this as the pivotal action There was a FS owl plan before this
Point at which the Owl became primary
29
Listing of the Owl
June 1989, proposed listing of Owl as threatened in Fed. Register
June 1990 listed, but no critical habitat
30
Congress in the Act
No stranger control Non-sustainable
ASQ as far back as Carter
1984 BailoutBecause of inflation,
companies bid too much for timber; Congress released them from their contracts withou full penalties.
Hatfield-Adams1989. Prescribed the
sale for (fiscal)‘89-’909.6 billion bd ftstreamlined appeals--
SEIS not subject to judicial
no temp restrain or prelim injunct on fisc ‘90 timber sales
deadlines for judicial review; special masters
31
Interagency Scientific Committee
Future Chief Thomas, a biologist and others
April 4 1990 Reduce harvest levels in owl area by 30-
40%
32
Listing of Habitat May ‘91
Fish and Wildlife complies with ESA (finally) Takes ISC report and enshrines it in law critical habitat 11.6 million acres of which 3 million were private
Small administration counterattack 1992 G_d Squad exempts small number
of sales for BLM
33
FEMAT: Option 9
“ecosystem management plan,” holistic, adaptive
Option 9 is response to summit in april ‘93Timber: year 1, 2 b bdf; then 1.7 b bdf then
decline to near 1 billion in the long run so it averaged to 1.2 b bdf over 10 years.
About 90% reduction from the all time highs
adaptive managementlocal communities and agencies
still protects owls
34
Presidents Forest Plan
Is Option 9Less timberMore attention to “ecosystem”Replaces the planner: Jack Ward Thomas
and now Mike DombeckReplacing the planning process: No more
ForplanMaybe no role for programmingGIS is in.
35
Congress Sets Cut Directly (again)
Salvage Ride (good for two years)rResponse to destructive firesResponse to declining cut
Under the logging provision, the U.S. Forest Service is directed to double the cutting of dead and dying trees in national forests over the next 18 months. The agency would be virtually unhindered by the Endangered Species Act and other laws protecting wildlife, and timber sales would be exempt from court challenge. (Bee, JULY 27, 1995)
36
Murrelets
The marbled murrelet was listed as threatened on October 1, 1992
It nests in older redwood trees.Various species of trout and salmon
are also listed as endangered.Endangered species also live on
private land.
The Murrelet lives inthe valuable timber. ESAprohibits cutting. A Dealfor Headwaters in thethe works.
Map Copyright © 1998 California Resources Agency. All rights reserved.
38
Headwaters Deal
US and State to buy Headwaters for $250 m (fed) + $130 m (state)
Agree to Habitat Conservation Plan for rest of PL’s holdings.
Does the HCP enable of hinder PL? Headwaters sold for less than market Environmentalist complaint about
Salmon habitat continues
39
Stakeholder Processes
Get the interested parties into room Bargaining in shadow of the law
ESAPolitical power
Clausowitz: War is the continuation of politics by other means
Republicans and Environmentalists ascendant at same time
40
Quincy Library Group
Locals (Jobs/Timber/Fire) try to get Congress to accept their view over
National Conservation Organizations (Animals/Oldgrowth)
in planning for N. Sierra Forests Big Issue is condition: Locals want
thinning to reduce fire risk Is an “adaptive management”
experiment
41
Making Sense of the Record
Explain the outcome with Political Economy
Find the implications for Planning
42
New Emphasis on Stock
Agency and AdministrationProtect Wildlife per se (stock): owls
and FishFire (stock): reduce hazard for wood
and for communitiesCreate “healthy,” “natural,” or
“diverse” forest (stock) get back to pre-european conditions
43
Counterpoint
Republican and CongressionalJOBS (flow)Timber (flow)But, Jobs makes much better politics
than timber.
44
JOBS
Does timber produce Jobs? Jobs per bd ft, but can only cut once Not constant: factor demand (Sullivan) Not constant over time: technical progress
Indirect jobs? IMPLAN I/O work says yes Stewart says little: transfer payments as
basic Regression says no
45
An Economist makes Sense of Politics
A GameMedian VoterMoney and VotesPolitical Business Cycle
46
Environmentalists and Timber Beast
Timber Beast R = argmaxR V(T(R) ,r+E)where R is rotation age; T is timber quantityr is interest rate and E is chance of
expropriation by regulation
Environmentalist lobbies for reservations of timber, E = argmax U(E,R, c(E))where c(E) is the cost of achieving E
47
continued
In this framework there are two reasons for the environmentalist to exercise restraint in his lobbying: cost and the adverse effect on current management (R).
Chris Costello, unpublished 1998.
48
Median Voter (Shalit)
Assuming that preferences are single peaked in commodity/amenity space and that voters decide the allocation between these uses, Shalit (unpublished 1976) uses the median voter theorem to find the actual allocation. He notes that the outcome is not pareto optimal and shows how side payments can be used to achieve a PO.
49
Money and Votes (Peltzman, 1976)
Timber Beast wants gov’t to cut timber. Cutting unpopular with voters.
Timber Beast donates money for political campaigns.
Voters respond to campaigns Beast gives politicians enough money to
overcome voter dislike of cutting.
50
Political Business Cycle (Ken Rogoff)
Presidents last only four years till re-election. That gives them a short time horizon and induces a political business cycle. Take the downturn at the beginning of term so that the recovery will be well underway by re-election. The Senator from Washington (and Idaho) needs rural votes. Shift timber harvest to the present to buy votes even if there is a severe restructuring later President’s plan starts high and ends low.
51
Simple Stochastic View
Goals for timber, owls TG, OG
V = min E t (T- TG)2 + b(O - OG)2 (1+r)-t
r is interest rate b is price of owls relative to timber s.t. biology, other constraints as before Clinton’s selection of Option 9:
TG = 1.2 billion, long run; OG high.
Recent History: a shift in the goals
52
Two period Stochastic
V = min .5 {(T1-TG)2 + E b(O2 - OG2)2 (1+r)-1}
s.t. O2 = (O1 - T1) + OG
2 = OG1 +
GG TOOr
b
br
rT 11121 11
1*
)(
11
2
1*
11
2*12
1 Varr
bOTO
r
bTTV GG
53
Stochastic Lessons
The randomness in goals contributes to an increase in regret in the same way that randomness in the biological processes do.
With a vacillation in goals from 1 to 10 billion bd ft., goal uncertainty could be more costly than biological uncertainty.
54
Stochastic: The “simple”
Fire stochastically assigns acres to new “birthdays” (Johnson et al in SNEP) without harvest
Trees don’t always go to the one year older age class
Relation between Owls O and Habitat W has random element and unknown parameter
55
Stochastic: The Horror
The Goals GO and GT change with the political winds. In a linear quadratic system, the control
variables would be linear in the targets GO and GT and the state variables. Thus the control variables would exhibit the same sort of random fluctuation as the targets.
56
Implications for Planning
The planning exercise will be done and redone. No commitment to carrying out the plans. Shift (for a while) with the political winds.
old-growth dependent species on a one way trip. Once the habitat goes, no later plan can bring it back. They will lose out a piece at a time.
The Planner will look like a fool.
57
Forward and Backward
The Biologist rules the roost. They will plan with mapping tools to get the forest condition that they want.
They will do it “by eye”An optimization will be after the fact
and only on lands they do not consider important.
GIS will drive LP and not vice versa.