Appendix 2.g.

GUIDANCE FOR SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Introduction

On March 20, 1991, NMFS provided interim guidance to Councils and NMFS Regional Offices on the need for and use of social impact assessments (SIA) for marine fishery management and planning. This expanded guidance provides, in four sections, information on the why? what? and how? of SIA and a discussion of the integration of SIA into the interdisciplinary process of fishery management planning and implementation.

The purpose of this document is to provide fishery managers with an understanding of the objectives and techniques of SIA. The treatment of the subject is general; every fishery has unique characteristics, and no SIA will be identical to another. In developing SIA for specific fisheries, Councils should consult with the social science members of their Scientific and Statistical Committees, and NMFS Regional Offices should consult with the Social Anthropologist, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management.

SIA Defined

SIA is a method of gauging the social consequences of alternative fishery management actions or policies. In general, SIA is the estimation of how actions or policies, and all reasonable alternatives to them, will affect the quality of people's lives. The purpose and logic of the SIA are the same as for other elements of environmental impact analysis and assessment: to determine (social) conditions in areas or (human) populations likely to be affected by the action or policy; to project future (social) effects of continuing the status quo, and then to estimate (social) effects that will result on local, regional, and national scales if reasonable fishery management alternatives are implemented.

An attempt is made to answer such basic questions as:

(1) who will be affected; (2) what will happen to the people affected; (3) what social changes will occur under each proposed management alternative; and, (4), how will any changes affect the social fabric and stability of the fishery and fishing communities? The SIA begins with the scoping process, during which problems with the status quo are identified and all reasonable alternatives are described, and continues with the social factor analysis of the status quo (baseline case) and the estimation of social change for each alternative relative to the baseline. The SIA is completed when the analyst provides the fishery manager or Council with the assessment of impacts. The assessment may be incorporated in the NEPA document, or in an appropriate part of the FMP/amendment, or be a separate document. The fishery manager or Council then uses the combined ecological, economic, and social assessments to select the preferred management alternative.

SIA Compared With Other Types of Analysis

Social versus Economic Impact Analysis

Social impacts are often, erroneously, assumed to be synonymous with economic impacts. Although economic analysis can be considered as one part of social science analysis, economic impact analysis addresses how efficiently investments of capital and other resources are returned in present and future benefits to society (i.e., whether the economic benefits of an action or policy outweigh the costs). Economic impact analysis focuses on resource supply and demand, prices, and jobs. Though social and economic impact assessments overlap and are related, they differ considerably in focus, underlying questions, methods, and approaches. Thus, the same data may be analyzed and interpreted differently depending on whether the analysis is economic or an SIA. For example, while economic analysis of a proposed fishery allocation might suggest an increase in jobs, local trade, and tax bases, the same data subjected to a social factors analysis might indicate community changes due to a shift from year-round to seasonal employment, decreased opportunities for crew members to become vessel owner/operators, and a rise in social costs to families and communities as they deal with the social effects of under-employment.

SIA versus Public Comment Information

It is often argued, again erroneously, that "common sense" will indicate the best decision. Common sense reflects the judgment of an individual or group of like-minded individuals. An SIA provides an objective analysis and assessment of all known social factors relative to the issue at hand and thus embraces information from a variety of sources in a systematic, scientifically verifiable manner, and presents this information in a form that a fishery manager can use. Public comments reflect the individual judgment(s) of persons affected or potentially affected by the decisions made by the fishery manager or Council, and are not presented in a systematic, scientifically verifiable form.

"Public involvement" is the term used to describe the set of information exchanges between NMFS and other agencies and the public related to a fishery management action or policy. Public involvement, through hearings, information meetings, and comments, is a two-way communication process designed to discover people's points of view, ideas, preferences, concerns, and expectations. Much information of use to fishery managers can be gathered through the public involvement process, but it cannot be used in a predictive or evaluative way in an SIA. This is because public comments are not systematically sought and gathered (e.g., population sampling is not random) and thus they do not necessarily reflect the views of all in the fishery; for example, those content with the status quo in a fishery may not make that point at all or as strongly as those who seek change. However, information gathered from public involvement can be used to infer the social attitudes, beliefs, and values of people taking part in or affected by the fishery under consideration. Public involvement in the scoping process provides social and economic information of great use in narrowing the range of issues that need to be studied.

SIA versus Social and Economic Overviews

Social and economic overviews, often referred to as community, regional, or fishery profiles, are continually up-dated reference documents. They provide much of the baseline data used in the social factors analysis; they are not social impact assessments. Social and economic overviews describe the present and historical social and economic context of a fishery. They describe participation in and dependence on the fishery by fishermen, communities, and regions. The overviews describe problems, opportunities, and conflicts in the fishery and fishing communities. The overviews are excellent reference sources, and are the documents envisaged in the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports required under the Guidelines for Fishery Management Plans [50 CFR 602].

SIA Defined

In summary, an SIA provides systematic information concerning the relative social benefits and costs of all reasonable management alternatives to the status quo in a fishery that the fishery manager or Council can use in selecting a preferred management strategy. The SIA is based on a scientific analysis of the baseline case (status quo) and evaluation of probable social impacts of electing to maintain the status quo or selecting any reasonable alternative to it.

Legislative Authorities for SIA

The MFCMA requires "the preparation and implementation, in accordance with national standards, of fishery management plans which will achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery" [MFCMA section 2(b)(4)].

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the interactions of natural and human environments, and the impacts on both systems of any changes due to governmental activities or policies. This consideration is to be done through the use of "a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences ... in planning and decision-making" [NEPA section 102(2)(a)]. Unquantified environmental amenities and values must be considered, and weighed, on par with technical and economic considerations. Unquantified amenities and values include such factors as angler satisfaction, job satisfaction and an independent life-style for commercial fishermen, and the opportunity to see species, such as salmon, in the wild for the non-consumptive user of marine fishery resources. Technical considerations include the management of fishing gears and enforceability of regulations.

An EA is required to reflect impacts of the fishery on the human environment of any Federal planning or rule-making. NEPA specifies that the term "human environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment" [40 CFR 1508.14]. When an EA shows that a NMFS fishery management action or policy will have a significant effect on the human environment, a detailed EIS, including results of analysis, must be prepared.

In times when fishery resources are abundant and all human uses can be satisfied without overexploiting the resource, an EA typically describes impacts on the natural environment. As exploitation of the resource approaches maximum sustainable yield and allocation between users becomes necessary, EAs are broadened to include full consideration of impacts on the human environment.

The MFCMA reflects the NEPA approach in the national standards for fishery management [MFCMA section 301(a)]. The "prohibition on overfishing" standard, "use of best available scientific information" standard, and the "fair and equitable allocation" standard are examples of this. Where a "system for limiting access to the fishery in order to achieve optimum yield" [MFCMA section 303(b)(6)] is deemed necessary, the MFCMA requires the Secretary of Commerce and the Council to consider in depth the economic and social impacts of the system.

In the 1990 amendments to the MFCMA, Congress added a requirement that an FMP must assess, specify, and describe the likely effects of conservation and management measures on participants in the affected fishery, and the effects on participants in other fisheries that may be affected directly or indirectly [MFCMA section 303(a)(9)]. This requirement strengthens the relationship between the MFCMA and NEPA and applies to all fishery management actions taken after

October 1, 1990.

In summary, a full range of impact assessments--ecological, economic, and social--are necessary to meet MFCMA and NEPA requirements. The approval or disapproval of an MFCMA fishery management action is not viewed by NMFS as being contingent upon the completeness of an impact assessment. However, NMFS believes that the more comprehensive the information base and analysis, the more objective and defensible will be the decision-making process.

SIA and NMFS Policy

SIA came of age with the passage of NEPA and the emphasis in industry and government upon evaluation of the effects on human populations of management policy and actions. Early fishery management actions under the MFCMA had varying types and forms of impact assessments, but the lack of staff, funds, and guidance led NMFS and Councils to concentrate upon ecological impact assessments after the initial wave of planning.

Economic impact analyses were added to the planning process in the early 1980s in response to the requirements of EO 12291 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). EO 12866 (October 4, 1983) required that an agency assess both the cost and benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs [section 1(b)(6)]. NMFS requires an economic assessment--the regulatory impact review (RIR)--detailing the net benefits and costs of each fishery management action and alternative. Passage of the RFA, in 1982, required all economic impacts on small businesses, such as those of fishing vessel owner/operators and dockside fish processors and dealers, to be assessed.

The Americanization of the marine fisheries of the United States, called for in the American Fisheries Promotion Act of 1980, came about in the late-1980s. At this point, domestic harvesters and processors were able to take and process virtually all allowable catches in the EEZ and the principal fishery management issue became that of allocation of catches among competing groups of U.S. fishermen; in fact, since 1988 some 80 percent of FMP/amendments have been allocative in nature. As Councils and NMFS turned to consideration of limited access or quota programs, the need for social factor analysis to meet the requirements of MFCMA section 303(b)(6) was recognized. SIA, driven by the provisions of the MFCMA, were carried out for fisheries such as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands bottomfish and seamount groundfish fishery, the Mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fishery, and the North Pacific halibut fishery.

The need for a full suite of impact assessments in fishery management was affirmed by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia in April, 1991. A legal challenge to the individual transferable quota system established for the

Mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fishery was dismissed by the Court, in part because the Council and the Secretary had explicitly considered and taken into account the social and economic factors specified in MFCMA section 303(b)(6) before approving the limited access scheme [Sea Watch International v. Mosbacher, 762 F.Supp.370 (D.D.C. 1991)]. The Council had commissioned a socio-cultural study of the labor force in the fishery in 1988 and this, together with economic impact analyses, had been considered by the Council and incorporated into the submission and record sent forward for Secretarial approval.

As experience with MFCMA and NEPA has grown, NMFS has provided guidance to Councils and Regions. In part, this guidance has taken the form of Guidelines for Fishery Management Plans [50 CFR part 602], and in part through guidance issued by NMFS. The interim guidance for the use of SIA (March 20, 1991) responded to requests from Councils and NMFS Regions. As social, cultural, and demographic information bases improve, so will the ability to apply SIA to fisheries as one of the decision-making tools used by managers. This document provides further guidance on, and information about, the use of SIA in the fishery management process.

Introduction

In NMFS, as in other Federal agencies such as the Forest Service, the term "social factor analysis" is used to indicate the analysis process, while the term "social impact assessment" is used to indicate the product of the analysis. The reason for an SIA is to help fishery managers make better decisions by clarifying the social, as well as the ecological and economic, effects of the proposed action or policy and its alternatives.

The guiding principle for impact analyses of any kind is that they provide clear, concise information that meets scientific standards. In this section, guidelines for minimum acceptable standards for social factor analysis will be described, so that the work can be carried out systematically and the results can be presented coherently. While the presentation of SIA results can take a number of forms, the use of a matrix of indicators or trend lines for each variable allows easy comparison of social change against the status quo (baseline case) and each reasonable alternative. This approach to presentation of social benefits and costs also facilitates comparison with the economic benefit and cost analysis developed for the RIR.

This section is written so that NMFS and Council staff who do not have social science backgrounds will be able to ask the right questions, understand the research issues, and be able to contract with, administer, and use the work of consulting experts. It must be noted that the guidance provided is not exhaustive. Individual fisheries and issues will call for a range of social factor analysis methods and techniques, and selection of these tools will require case-by-case judgment. Social factor analysis is an evolving field in applied social science and creative applications may be found to fit different fisheries and their participants.

Significance of Social Factor Analysis

Social systems are as fragile and as delicately balanced as other ecological systems. Social systems are extremely sensitive to change and any potential changes must be examined closely, so that their potential social benefits or social costs can be determined and considered. In particular, care must be given to the effects of cumulative impacts of relatively small changes made over a number of years in separate regulatory actions.

Thus, social factor analysis involves an evaluation of the possible social changes that any given fishery action or policy decision might cause. The term "social change" includes alterations in social relationships between persons and/or groups directly involved in the fishery, and between individuals and/or groups in the fishery and their community and regional social systems. For example, as a result of a proposed fishery action or policy, will fishermen and/or community members have to change their style, pace, and/or standard of living? Will cooperation and interaction patterns be changed? Will change be sudden or gradual? How does the proposed action fit with historical trends and participation in the fishery? How does the proposed change fit with the cultural or normative expectations of behavior in the fishery and community? How do fishermen and community members view the alternatives; what do they think will happen if a particular one is chosen? Social factor analysis should provide answers to these and related questions, so that fishery managers and policy makers can reach more informed decisions.

Four variables have been identified by Flynn (1983) and the U.S. Forest Service (1984) as cross-cutting social and economic analyses. These variables are seen as central to understanding the impacts of a management action or policy. First, the size and demographic characteristics of the fishery-related work force residing in the area; this determines demographic, income, and employment effects in relation to the work force as a whole, by community and region. Second, the amount of fishery-related services (including fish handling and processing), material and equipment obtained in the individual communities and the region, and the effects of proposed changes upon employment and income. Third, fishery-related taxes accruing to local taxing jurisdictions, and the effects of proposed actions on the ability of these jurisdictions to provide necessary services in communities and the region. Fourth, the non-economic social and cultural aspects of the proposed action or policy; these include life-style issues, health and safety issues, and the natural environment including non-consumptive and recreational uses of living marine resources and their habitats. In addition to these four variables, one other variable is related to MFCMA actions; a description of changes in historical dependence on and participation in the fishery by fishermen and communities, reflected in structural changes in fishing practices, income distribution and rights. These five variables reflect the key factors described in MFCMA section 303(b)(6) and will be revisited in following sections.

Planning a Social Factor Analysis

Social factor analysis in fishery management cannot be a lengthy process taking many months or years to complete. Due to the usual constraints of time and funds for Federal activities, and the need of Councils and NMFS to proceed expeditiously with decision making, social factor analyses have to be well planned and focussed. For this to occur, it is assumed that the interdisciplinary plan development teams assembled by Councils or NMFS, from the start of the planning action, include economists, anthropologists and/or sociologists, and fishery managers and biologists.

At this point, a distinction must be made between social factor analysis as a research process and social factor analysis as a guide to the decision process. The goal of any research process is to gather as much knowledge as possible about a subject and link that information to a theoretical problem or perspective, with the goal of testing hypotheses about social behavior and outcomes. While such research information can be valuable in terms of the decision process, social factor analysis as a guide to the decision process is much more sharply focussed. Information is collected for the specific purpose of providing fishery managers with a means of evaluating the social consequences of alternative fishery management or policy decisions. If the social factor analysis is to be carried out by consultants, this distinction between social factor analysis as a research process and as a decision process has to be clearly communicated. Academics or laboratory research staff tend to be oriented to social factor analysis as a research process, so care should be taken to ensure that the need for the decision process focus is known.

In managing the social factor analysis, Bryan and Hendee (1983) suggest three principles as a guiding framework. First, focus on the major social concerns and issues revealed in the scoping process. If a Council does not engage in a formal scoping hearing, these concerns and issues can be obtained through previous public involvement and comments; by discussions with fishery and community leaders, fishery managers in NMFS and the state agencies, social scientists, and others knowledgeable about the fishery and region; and knowledge of other similar fisheries. Other important social issues and concerns may be discovered and considered during the analysis, but most anticipated social effects and all groups likely to be affected should be identified during the scoping process to target the analysis and reduce the need for additional exploratory work.

Second, social factor variables should be sought in an analytic rather than an encyclopedic manner. A social factor analysis is not the excuse to conduct a data-fishing expedition. Collect data on variables that accurately represent the identified issues and concerns. Specific issue-driven variables can be selected from the broad categories of effects to be discussed later.

Third, before collecting new data, all existing data bases should be scrutinized and utilized if appropriate. If available data from other analyses--such as state coastal management program documents, other environmental assessments or fishery management plans, or state regional censuses--are skillfully used, the time and expense of new data collection may be minimized. However, analysts should take care not to let the nature of readily available data drive their analysis. If, for example, Bureau of the Census data offer some information on fishery employment, this should not preclude a special study of the social dimensions of fishery employment change if the Bureau of the Census material does not articulate chosen variables adequately.

Analysts and fishery managers should be aware of the time-consuming process necessary to obtain Office of Management and Budget clearances on questionnaires and other social survey instruments, and thus seek quantitative data from other sources wherever possible. Bureau of the Census, state, and local government data are usually available. Special surveys carried out for state fishery agencies may be available, particularly in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Reports of Sea Grant-sponsored research often provide useful information for SIA. Systematic observation of selected variables during field visits coupled with qualitative information gathered from key constituents and community sources provide excellent corroborative data sets. The idea is not to gather as much data as possible, but as little as necessary. By using different sources of information, cross-validation of selected variables provides adequate information for impact assessments.

Determining the Level of Analysis

Selection of the level of analysis is a judgment call based on the nature of the action being considered. At one end of the scale are actions that are technical in nature; for example, an FMP may be amended to reflect recent changes in the biological definition of overfishing for the fishery. Such actions may have little, if any, immediate impact on the fishery and thus any social factor analysis needed will probably be minimal; however, the fishery manager should bear in mind that the change may have considerable impacts should overfishing occur and the fishery has to be closed. At the other end of the scale is the fishery management action in which limited access is a management alternative considered by the Council. Consideration of limited access as a reasonable alternative to the baseline case requires that the social and economic factors listed in MFCMA section 303(b)(6) be considered in depth by the Council and the Secretary, and a full social factor analysis will probably be necessary. Judgment should be used in determining the level of social factor analysis; the analysis should be tailored to the scale of the issues and problems identified in the scoping process and subsequent reviews. Where significant public concern about the fishery or a management alternative is expressed, or in a fishery in which conflict between user groups is occurring or likely, then the level (or depth) of analysis should be increased.

Bryan and Hendee (1983) discuss the subtle nature and depth of social impacts. A fishery manager should be aware that even small technical changes to FMPs may result in large, cumulative social impacts. Further, because of the subtle nature of most social impacts, discussion of these effects is often subordinated to other, more obvious, concerns. Since social effects from fishery management decisions tend to be incremental and cumulative, communities and fishermen adjust, absorb, and adapt to the impacts, thus causing continual change in baseline data for the next social factor analysis. All four major categories of social factor variables--lifestyles; attitudes, beliefs, and values; social organization and structure; and population demographics--may, in effect, be shielded from change by the incremental nature of fishery management actions. Yet, a rigorous review may reveal that fishermen and fishing communities may have undergone significant social change over time. The anthropologist or sociologist working with a plan development team (PDT) should thus revisit earlier social factor analyses for the fishery before making a final determination on the level of analysis necessary for any particular management proposal.

Introduction

The MFCMA calls for consideration of relevant social factors in the determination of optimum yield; the assessment, specification, and description of the likely effects of a fishery management plan on participants in a fishery; and, in the case of limited access for a fishery, consideration of historical fishing practices and dependence on, present participation in, and the social and cultural framework relevant to, the fishery. All these factors can be embraced in six broad groups of social variables: historical descriptions of the fishery and community dependence; the economy of the fishery and fishing communities; patterns of lifestyles, employment, and involvement in the fishery; social organization of the fishery and community; social attitudes, beliefs, and values of fishermen and communities; and population dynamics and demographics of the fishery and region.

In order to articulate these variables in the analysis, four types of activities are necessary, usually undertaken in the order in which they appear. Since the analysis process is iterative, the sequence is not always neat or well-ordered. The first activity, scoping, has been discussed earlier. From the scoping activity, decisions are made as to the extent of areas of analysis and the selection of variables for analysis. The second activity, describing and analyzing the past and present social system of the fishery provides the reference point for the development of a comparison baseline case, and describes the status quo of the fishery. The third activity is the estimation of changes in social conditions resulting from alternative management actions or policies. Finally, the social conditions of the baseline and the estimated social effects of the various other alternatives are compared to determine the "net" costs and benefits of each fishery management alternative.

Scoping

Scoping is the preliminary analysis to determine whether social effects are likely to occur as a result of the proposed fishery management action or policy. The anthropologist or sociologist working with the PDT should use the scoping process to identify all user groups and communities that may be affected by the action, identify key social issues, and select social variables with which to analyze the effects of continuing the present form of the fishery versus the alternatives proposed. The analyst should also identify unquantified social and environmental amenities and values associated with the fishery.

Clues to the nature and intensity of possible social impacts can be obtained from the formation of groups of people affected by the proposed action or policy; how the proposed action "fits" with historical trends; and the possible effects of the action on the major categories of human behavior (the way fishermen and fishing communities live; the ways they organize and meet social needs; demographic and sea-use patterns). The duration of effects and the scale of possible changes are also important considerations.

Selection of Social Variables for Analysis

Selection of variables for analysis evolves from the identification of key issues during the scoping process. The development of the variables depends to a large part on the availability and reliability of data bases. The anthropologist or sociologist undertaking the analysis will establish standards and criteria for the analysis after reviewing data bases and considering the time and effort needed for the analysis.

Often information will be primarily qualitative supported by one or two quantifiable variables. For example, in the social impact assessment of the Argo Merchant oil spill, it was found in a survey (more than 130 respondents) that public perception that there had been major damage to the marine environment was high, but that public behavior indicated that this perception was not the determinant of actual behavior. These qualitative findings were supported by quantified data on sales tax receipts from hotels and vacation lodgings on Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, and

Cape Cod, and by data on passengers carried on the Steamship Authority's vessels for the period prior to and following the spill (Fricke and Maiolo, 1978).

Use of selected sub-variables from the principal variable categories of lifestyles, economic behavior, attitudes and values, social organization, historical trends, and population variables allowed the investigators in the example above to make assessments of the impacts of the oil spill. Though the sample sizes by community, social class, and income and education were smaller than desirable (less than 32 respondents per matrix cell) they were validated by the use of the quantified data.

The selection of the key sub-variables from each general category should meet the following general standards and criteria:

relevance to the analysis, or how closely the variable relates to the MFCMA and/or NEPA action or policy; significance, or how strong the impact is likely to be;

availability, or how available data are with which to measure the variable;

efficiency, or the extent to which the variable and its measure eliminate the need for other measures; sensitivity, or the degree to which the variable and its measure clearly register changes from the baseline for each reasonable alternative; accuracy, or the degree to which the variable and its measure yield consistent results; and validity, or the reliability of the measure and whether it correctly represents the variable.

In deciding on appropriate measures, the analyst will always consider qualitative information for a variable if it is supported by other, preferably quantitative, measures as in the oil spill impact case cited.

In summary, selection of social variables is one of the most important steps in social factor analysis. Care should be taken in four respects. First, the analyst should ensure that the variables selected actually reflect the potential social effects anticipated in the scoping process. Second, the variables should be issue-driven and, again, reflect issues raised in the scoping process. Third, the variables selected should articulate each aspect of the legal requirements (e.g. the social and economic factors in MFCMA section 303(a)(9) or (b)(6)), and the dimensions of the social system (e.g., lifestyle, demography, or values). Fourth, the variables selected should be easily measured and compared.

Development of the Baseline Case

The baseline case, or the status quo in the fishery, is the first area of analysis. The baseline needs to be described, or profiled, prior to the beginning of the analysis. This description identifies and enumerates the regional and local characteristics of the fishery and its participants. In many fisheries, participants include wide-ranging fishermen, who follow the stock of fish throughout its range, and local fishermen, who fish on a stock when it passes through their fishing area. Different types of gears and vessels are used, and the economic and social investments vary with each mode of production. The support services for the fishery also vary within the range of the fish stock; recreational fishing may cluster around specific fishing areas with specific service sectors, and support and processing sectors for commercial fishing will reflect ease of access to fishing grounds and markets. The social systems associated with support services should be described in the profile document.

The baseline description of participation in each sector of the fishery should include all relevant demographic and community information including income, employment, lifestyle, and social value data. Care should be taken to ensure that participation in fisheries other than the one being considered is noted and recorded, and that the annual, or seasonal, round of activities by participants in the fishery is described. Social systems do not exist in isolation, so general information on population and employment in the region and communities of the fishery should be included.

The information included in the profile document should, as a rule of thumb, include all that is necessary to meet the requirements of MFCMA section 303(b)(6). This includes description of the present and historical participation in the fishery, dependence on the fishery by fishermen and communities, the economics of the fishery, actual and potential mobility of vessels between fisheries, the economics of the fishery, and the cultural and social framework of the fishery. In particular, care should be taken to identify and include any subsistence fishing activities and any participation by Native Americans in the fishery in the baseline document.

Using the information collected during the development of the profile, the analyst turns to projection of the information forward to see if any social changes are likely to occur without the formulation of new fishery actions or policy. For example, population changes projected by coastal community or state planning departments may be such that changes in the fishery are likely to occur. The baseline case thus is composed of two elements; the baseline document, which records the status quo, and projection of the status quo forward in time to provide an estimation of what is likely to occur in the fishery without the intervention of the fishery manager.

Estimation of Social Changes for Alternative Actions

During the scoping process reasonable alternatives to the status quo will have been developed by the PDT. In fisheries, these alternatives are usually couched in conservation terms--the need to reduce fishing mortality to prevent overfishing, for example--or expressed as the need to avoid conflict among user groups through allocation of the available resource. The estimations of social change for the alternatives will be grounded on the baseline information developed for the status quo case and will be assessed with the same suite of variables used to estimate social change in the status quo. For each reasonable alternative a matrix of changes will be developed, with weighting of trends as appropriate.

The Social Impact Assessment

The final step in the process is the comparison of the social changes estimated for the status quo case and each reasonable alternative. Where a matrix has been used consistently in each social factor analysis, the trends of social benefits and costs for each of the alternatives can be easily compared. It is to this matrix and accompanying analysis document that the decision maker turns for the comparison of impacts. Often the comparison will be expressed in qualitative terms because factors, such as lifestyle change, cannot be expressed in direct numerical terms. However, if the analyst has consistently used variables and information bases, the comparison of trends is appropriate and choice of a preferred fishery management action is possible.

Introduction

This section deals with a number of issues that social scientists and fishery managers will encounter during the SIA process. These issues include availability and collection of data, criteria for verification and documentation, integration of the SIA with economic and biological assessments, identification of important social issues, identification of affected fishermen and fishing areas, and estimation and projection of social impacts. The discussion of each area is, of necessity, general and the reader is advised to consult relevant literature sources for more comprehensive treatments when specific questions need to be addressed.

Availability and Collection of Data

Literature Surveys

As noted earlier, an SIA is not the appropriate vehicle for a data-fishing expedition. Data collected must be related to the issues and the circumstances of the fishery. Initial information will be collected through the scoping process and through reviews of existing studies and literature. While peer-reviewed literature resources should be sought, information from "gray" literature--conference papers, technical reports, etc.--should also be considered and evaluated. It is important that the literature survey report include an evaluation of all relevant empirical studies, since questions about the scope, methods, and validity of the SIA at hand will be couched in comparative terms.

The literature survey will provide information on social issues and variables relevant to the fishery action or policy being considered but, since each fishery is unique, will need to be supplemented with data specific to that fishery and action or policy. The SIA will need a scientific sampling of information relating to the social factor variables described earlier: historical participation in, and dependence on, the fishery; the economics of the fishery and fishing communities; lifestyles, employment, and involvement in the fishery; social attitudes, values, and beliefs of fishermen and communities; social organization of the fishery and community; and population dynamics and demographics of the fishery, community, and region.

Survey Research

In earlier sections the use of existing data bases has been encouraged for reasons of economy and efficiency. However, the scoping process will often reveal gaps in available data and frequently these have to be filled prior to analysis. Two techniques are available to the anthropologist or sociologist undertaking the SIA. The first, involving the development of new surveys, is time consuming. The second is the use of inductive techniques using existing data coupled with qualitative information and observation.

The first technique will require survey research, based on representative samples, using appropriately designed survey instruments. Usually these survey instruments will be questionnaires, but unobtrusive measures can also yield useful social data. For example, researchers in North Carolina developed a method for tracking recreational fishing effort by mapping the movements of boat trailers as part of a creel survey. This technique, using trailer license plate numbers in a manner similar to fish tagging surveys, enabled the researchers to plot the seasonal movements of recreational fishermen around the North Carolina Sounds and estimate the number of fishing trips made each year.

If the survey research need requires data collection using questionnaires, care should be taken on three points: (1) asking the right questions, (2) selecting an appropriate sampling strategy, and (3) using appropriate data analysis techniques. The questions should focus on the major social issues at hand; the scoping process should have surfaced these issues. The selection of social variables that will measure the relative importance of the issues will define the questions on the survey instrument. At this point it is necessary to stress the need for clear and bias-free wording of survey questions. The clarity and relevance of questions and the order in which questions are presented can significantly affect the response to a questionnaire and the validity of the analysis. Thus great care should be taken in pre-testing and designing any survey prior to use. In questionnaire surveys carried out by the Councils or NMFS, an OMB clearance of the research design and instrument is required. The clearance process can take 6 months or more. Surveys using unobtrusive measures, such as the "trailer tagging" survey noted above, do not normally require OMB clearance since they do not involve contact between researchers and constituents.

Analytical Induction

The inductive approach has the advantage of being less expensive in time and other resources than surveys, but has a greater potential for error. Using existing data bases and use of in-depth interviews and observation data collected systematically from fishermen and communities, the analyst formulates models about potential social impacts in the fishery and communities. Information that does not "fit" or is contradictory to the analyst's models is cause for the revision of the models, if the data in question is found to be sound. Using analytical induction permits the analyst to find the median areas of impact; in simulation models, the Monte Carlo system approaches use of information in much the same way.

Focus Group and Delphi Research Techniques

Two alternatives to surveys and analytical induction are the use of "focus group" research and Delphi-techniques. Both draw from survey and analytical induction approaches, but provide more scientifically-robust data sets than the induction approach. Focus groups may be as small as six persons, and thus can escape OMB requirements for surveys. The groups are chosen to be representative of all participants in a fishery or community, and through a process of discovery and discussion issues and impacts are identified and quantified. Use of this technique requires special training in research and interview facilitation techniques.

The Delphi approach employs techniques akin to ethnographic research; a sample of respondents is selected and asked a series of questions in a first wave of individual interviews. The social scientist then compares information, and returns to members of the sample and asks them to account for discrepancies between their account and that of others. This additional round of information normally accounts for most of the differences, and a third wave of interviews usually provides accurate median-data sets that can be used for analysis and assessment. As in focus group work, Delphi interviews require special training and interview skills for the analyst.

Population Samples

Sampling a population of fishermen is always difficult because they are usually fishing during "normal" working hours. The key to sampling is to frame a balanced sample of fishermen by types of gear fished, role in the fishery, residence and demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, years fishing), and select from the sample. Sampling rules must be followed carefully in order to have a scientifically valid study. Again, knowledge of sampling techniques for SIA requires special training and skills.

Statistical Analyses

The level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, or interval) will determine the forms of statistical measurement. Most social science data are nominal in nature, and thus fairly elementary measures of statistical association and significance are used. Descriptive, rather than inferential, statistics are usual. Where surveys are possible, more sophisticated analyses may be carried out since variables and the levels of measurement are tailored to the issues at hand.

Verification and Documentation Standards

Concerns over lack of data, precision of information, and changes in social systems adapting to new environments, make it important to set standards for verification and documentation of SIA findings. The first standard in any scientific endeavor is to establish factual accuracy; it should be possible to verify all data used in the SIA. The second standard is that of "external validity"; can the results of the SIA be generalized to other similar fisheries and/or communities?

The key to this verification of accuracy and results is the process of cross-validation, or determining whether the same results are found across a number of different situations. Cross-validation can be done within the study by comparing results of two or more focus groups, or by analyzing data sets from different sources and comparing the results. If the analyses reach the same conclusions, the SIA can be said to be cross-validated and has been verified.

Documentation of data, methods of research, and research assumptions is a further check upon the accuracy of the SIA. Independent researchers should be able to use the same data sets, methods and assumptions and achieve the same results. Care in documenting the SIA is thus an important element in the validity of the SIA.

Integration of the SIA with Economic and Biological Analyses

The interdisciplinary process of research for impact assessment under NEPA requires participation of social scientists on PDTs and in the assessment process. Interaction of PDT members and the sharing of data and analyses should result in an FMP or EIS in which biological, economic, and social analyses form a seamless whole. This is a goal that NMFS is striving to attain.

To date, social scientists have rarely been part of a PDT because none are directly employed by Councils or NMFS Regions. When they are invited to join a PDT, the invitation often comes late in the process, usually after scoping has taken place and issues have been identified for analysis. For these reasons social issues often go unrecognized, and their consequences unappreciated, until social impacts become a matter of political concern. All Councils have an interdisciplinary Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) on which, normally, social scientists and economists serve. The social scientist members of SSC are in an excellent position to provide advice to Councils and PDT during the scoping process, assist with defining the need for SIA, and to review the work of contractors and/or Council or NMFS employees.

The importance of early involvement of social scientists in the interdisciplinary fishery plan development cannot be over-emphasized. The early identification of social issues can assist the other members of the team in identifying reasonable policy or management alternatives for analysis and, in particular, identifying alternatives which may minimize social impacts or are likely to be accepted by fishermen as "socially appropriate", that is, alternatives which recognize the social values of the fishermen and their communities and fishing practices.

As the development of date sets and information takes place, cooperation between social scientists, economists, fishery biologists, and fishery managers will allow the sharing of information and results of analysis. While some economies may be achieved in economic and social data collection, the principal benefit will be from the exchanges between analysts as alternatives are described and refined. Council members and fishery managers, in their turn, will receive holistic analyses to inform their selection of courses of action.

Identification of Important Social Issues

The SIA process is an issue-driven one; thus identification of social issues of importance to successful management of the fishery is essential.

While information gained through public involvement is often one-sided, because special interest groups tend to dominate hearings and generate mail and contacts out of proportion to their numbers, it is helpful in defining the bounds of issues to be considered. Information about social issues and concerns of the balance of the fishery can be obtained through systematic contacts with industry, community, and organization leaders. These contacts often form a two-step flow of communication; information about the planning process flows from the PDT and/or Council to leaders who, in turn, pass it on to those with whom they share interests. Similarly, the social scientist obtains information from these constituencies through the key leaders which permits the identification of social issues of concern.

Published materials are an excellent source of information about social issues. The social scientist will make use of any and all peer-reviewed reports and articles as a matter of course, but the importance of articles in newspapers and magazines cannot be overlooked. These often are more timely and direct than more academic studies, and are "peer-reviewed" by the communities and populations they serve.

Expert opinion should be sought during the scoping of issues. An expert is likely to be aware of special issues that the public has yet to perceive. In particular, experts are likely to be conversant with the impacts of similar management schemes on fisheries, other renewable natural resources, and/or communities in other, distant, locations. Experts are also likely to be more conversant with the issues of cumulative social effects than members of the general public.

Early articulation of social issues, and recognition of these issues by all associated with the planning of a fishery action or policy, can do much to defuse the tendency to polarize an issue and thus avoid the "them and us" syndrome. Where the public has been involved in the scoping process and can see that social concerns are being actively considered, there is a better climate of understanding toward the action being proposed and the costs and benefits associated with alternatives. In short, social issue identification and selection is one way of ensuring that all stakeholders in the fishery, and their legitimate concerns, are recognized and considered in the planning process.

Identification of Participants In, and Location Of, a Fishery

The MFCMA states that "to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination" [Section 301(a)(3)]. Further, the MFCMA requires a fishery impact statement "which shall assess, specify, and describe the likely effects, if any, of the conservation and management measures on--

(A) participants in the fisheries affected by the plan or amendment; and

(B) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, after consultation with such Council and representatives of those fisheries" [Section 303(a)(9)].

The MFCMA thus provides general guidelines to the social scientist for the identification of affected populations and areas.

However, the analyst will need to define the areas of potential impact in light of social issues identified in the scoping process and in consultation with other members of the PDT. Mapping historical patterns of participation in the fishery, by port, sea area, and mode of participation, is usually a sufficient method for determining harvesting populations and their harvesting areas. This method is customarily applied by ethnographers in the course of mapping subsistence use of natural resources. For assessments of impacts on processing and service sectors, other methods may need to be used. For example, if frozen block product from a fishery is normally processed to market forms by plants in another region, and the alternatives proposed for the action will have severe impacts on employment in these plants, a "systems" analysis of linkages may require consideration of these secondary impacts.

Methods of Projecting Social Impacts

The estimation of future social impacts is perhaps the most difficult aspect of SIA. The identification of issues, discovery and analysis of social data, completion of social and economic profiles of the fishery, documentation and verification of variables frequently occupy all the PDT and analyst's time. Projection of social impacts have been given short-shrift in fishery plans to date, even though they are the core of the assessment. Choice of a method of estimating impacts depends upon the amount of information available and its quality.

All techniques of estimating impacts involve forms of projection. The projection can be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of these approaches depending upon the data and analysis available. A projection is a straightline estimation of past and present social and fishery trends into the future on the basis of some stated assumption, for example that those historically active in the fishery will continue to participate. The projection is not a forecast; it merely indicates what could happen if the stated assumptions are met. Population estimates are typically simple forms of projection.

A more sophisticated form of projection is that using an "if... then" proposition. The analyst takes information from a projection and identifies and analyzes the important causality variables. This "contingency analysis" examines sequential cause-effect variables but does not normally place these within a time frame. However, the probabilities of the occurrence of future events and changes can be estimated.

The form of projections known as forecasts are the most rigorous and useful but require detailed information bases. The baseline and alternatives are defined precisely and variables are equally well defined. The forecast uses these measurements to explore ranges of impacts "in the least ambiguous terms possible, specifies and analyzes the salient cause-effect relationships in the greatest feasible detail, fixes potential scheduling of future situations and events as closely as possible and details the estimates of every potential future with the greatest attainable precision" [Miller, D.C. 1981:154]. Miller observes that the strict criteria by which a forecast must be judged are such that few projections ever attain the status of a forecast.

David C. Miller suggests that there are at least 73 methods from which an analyst can choose for estimating societal futures; he has grouped these into three broad categories and 12 principal types of technique [1981:155]. Miller's first category embraces techniques using time series and projections. In this category there are three types of techniques: trend extrapolation; pattern identification; and probablistic forecasting. These statistical methods use historical time-series data to project values for one or more variables. These techniques can also be used to develop measures of confidence in the projected values

Miller's second general category includes projection techniques based on models and simulations. These include dynamic models, cross-impact analysis, monte-carlo or "KSIM" models, input/output analysis, and policy capture models. Miller suggests that static modelling is of limited use in developing estimates of potential futures, because each component variable is fixed in one single relationship with all other variables. Dynamic models use a number of variables, in which each variable or component can move through a range of values and relationships with all other variables. By examining the results of modelling various changes the analyst can prepare projections for each reasonable management alternative relative to the status quo or baseline case (Miller, D.C. 1981:156).

Qualitative and holistic projection techniques form Miller's third broad category. These methods include scenario development; expert-opinion methods; alternative futures forecasting; and values forecasting. These techniques are used when there are few quantitative data available, and the analyst must rely on techniques such as the Delphi method for developing informed estimates of the future. However, methods of hindcasting used by historians can yield quantifiable information for use in scenario and future modelling.

Summary

The special considerations outlined in the Section above are such that anyone without SIA training should seek expert guidance and refer to the literature for information on details of issues and methods. However, it is clear from the material presented that SIA requires the same degree of scientific rigor and effort as the biological and economic elements of environmental impact assessment. Done properly, an SIA is as valuable an assessment tool as a good fishery stock assessment. Without adequate baseline data and careful analysis, an SIA does not provide the decision maker with assessments which help understand long term impacts. If a professional social scientist with skills in SIA methods undertakes the assessment, the Council has an added assurance that the study is a sound one.

The use of peer review is a final check on the validity of the SIA. Most Councils have at least one social scientist (anthropologist or sociologist) on their Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). Each Council should rely on the advice of the SSC social scientist(s) to determine whether the peer review can be done by SSC members or whether a special panel should be established. It is recommended that, whenever there is a potentially litigious management issue or there might be the perception of conflict of interest on the part of SSC social scientists, a panel of three independent social science reviewers be established. This independent review should focus on suitability of research design and methods, and suitability of analytical techniques, recognizing assessment time and budget constraints. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the assessment has been done correctly, and is comparable to other, state-of-the-art studies.

The guidance provided above is based on, and closely follows, a similar document prepared by Dr Hobson Bryan for use by USDA Forest Service managers in developing forest management plans, and the assistance of Dr Lambert Wenner, Forest Service Sociologist, and his successor, Dr Arnold Holden, is gratefully acknowledged.

Bryan, Hobson (1984): A guide to social analysis - U.S. Forest

Service training manual. Washington, DC: U.S.D.A. Forest

Service, Office of Environmental Coordination

Centaur Associates, Inc. (1979): Phase 1 report on social and

economic information for management of marine recreational

fishing - identification of data needs and priorities for

data collection. Washington, DC: National Marine Fisheries Service, Resource Statistics Division

Finsterbusch, Kurt (1980): Understanding social impacts - assessing the effects of public projects. Beverley Hills,

CA: Sage Publications

Finsterbusch, Kurt; Lynn G. Llewellyn and C.P. Wolf (eds.)(1983) Social impact assessment methods. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications

Finsterbusch, Kurt and C.P. Wolf (1981): Methodology of social

impact assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company

Flynn, Cynthia (1983): "Interface and complementarity between economic analysis and social impact analysis." In Maurice E. Voland and William A. Fleischman (eds.) Sociology and social impact analysis in Federal resource management agencies. Washington, DC: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination

Hill, Philip (1989): "Social impact assessment - theory and practice." Mimeo. Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, NOAA/NMFS, Silver Spring, MD

Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles (1994): "Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment." U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-16,

29 p.

Miller, David C. (1981): "Methods for Estimating Societal Futures." In Finsterbusch and Wolf (eds) op.cit, pp 153-16

Millsap, William (ed.)(1984): Applied social science for environmental planning. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Socioeconomics Section, American Fisheries Society. (1993)

Handbook of Sources & Applications of Fisheries Social Science Information. Bethesda, MD

Voland, Maurice E. and William A. Fleischman (eds.) (1983):

Sociology and social impact analysis in Federal natural

resource management agencies. Washington, DC: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination

Wenner, Lambert N. (ed.)(1984): Issues in social impact analysis - interagency symposium proceedings. Washington, DC: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination

Wenner, Lambert N. (ed.)(1984): Social science information and resource management - interagency symposium proceedings. Washington, DC: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Office of Environmental Coordination

Revised:03/01/95