 SCOPE AND BACKGROUND OVERVIEW OF SIERRA NEVADA ECOSYSTEMS AND ASSESSMENT STATUS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION OF ASSESSMENTS AND SOLUTIONS
CURRENT PAGE: 
 
rev. Jun. 17, 1996 © 1996 Regents of the University of California |
|
Scope and BackgroundThis report summarizes the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) completed by the Science Team. It contains a list of critical findings and a summary of the assessments, case studies, and alternative management strategies. The project was requested by Congress in the Conference Report for Interior and Related Agencies 1993 Appropriation Act (H.R. 5503), which authorized funds for a scientific review of the remaining old growth in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada in California, and for a study of the entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem by an independent panel of scientists, with expertise in diverse areas related to this issue. The U.S. Forest Service augmented support for the study and convened a steering committee to help draft the charge and select the Science Team. The Steering Committee had representatives from the Forest Service, the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, the University of California, and the California Academy of Sciences, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.The Science Team was eventually composed of eighteen team members and nineteen special consultants. In addition, many other scientists worked closely with team members (107 as authors or coauthors of chapters and reports), some throughout the project, and their contributions appear in volumes II and III or are acknowledged elsewhere. Overall management of the project was the responsibility of the University of California Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, through a research agreement with the U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. The project devoted most of its effort to analyzing existing information rather than conducting new studies or experiments. The integration of this accumulated information became a primary objective as we sought a range of options for future directions of management. Geographic information systems (GISs) formed a primary means of synthesizing data, displaying information, and considering options for further analysis. The complete report of SNEP is contained in four volumes: Volume I is a summary of the other volumes and contains a presentation of alternative strategies and their implications for the future health and sustainability of the ecosystem. Volume II contains technical assessments of historical, physical, biological, ecological, social, and institutional conditions in the Sierra Nevada, selected case studies, details on the scientific basis for and methods used in strategies, and references to the literature and data sources. Assessment reports were guided by five questions: (1) What were historic ecological, social, or economic conditions, trends, and variability? (2) What are current ecological, social, or economic conditions? (3) What are trends and risks under current policies and management? (4) What policy choices will achieve ecological sustainability consistent with social well-being? (5) What are the implications of these choices? All chapters in volume II were reviewed extensively, including anonymous peer review secured by the Steering Committee. Volume III has late submissions of peer-reviewed papers from volume II, additional commissioned reports, and summary listings of workshops and participants. Volume IV is a computer-based catalogue of all public databases, maps, and other digitally stored information used in the project. These materials will be listed under the SNEP name and available on the Internet from the Alexandria Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara (http://alexandria.sdc.ucsb.edu/) and the California Environmental Resource Evaluation System (CERES) project of the Resources Agency of the state of California (http://ceres.ca.gov/snep). A directory to the GIS portion and available data from the study is in volume I. Public involvement was an important component of SNEP (see volume I). Seventy people with diverse interests and responsibilities in the Sierra were assembled as key contacts. This group met with the team to review progress, ask questions, help in framing scenarios, assist in review of assessments, and plan larger public involvement. The team held smaller work sessions and reported on progress several times at preannounced public meetings called by the Steering Committee. Throughout the study, many team members met with individuals and local and regional groups, presented reports at professional and technical meetings, briefed county, state, and federal agency personnel, and held local workshops. This interaction was vital to the teams progress and helped sharpen its work. The congressional language and background for this study emphasized that the report was to advise Congress, not to prepare a single plan, a range of options for implementation, or preferred alternatives as in an environmental impact statement process required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The report is a scientific assessment that highlights what is known and presents individual and collective judgments about what this knowledge means for meeting the stated goal of protecting the health and sustainability of the Sierra Nevada while providing resources to meet human needs. Such an assessment leads directly to some of the choices that lie before the public. To help frame some of these choices, the team chose a small sample of strategies to demonstrate broad choices and implications. The strategies should also educate us on the way parts of the system interact and should lead to a better understanding of unexpected ramifications brought about by human action. No single model of the Sierra that encompasses all interacting parts is possible. We have deliberately chosen several modelsmathematical and nonmathematical, quantitative and qualitativeto illustrate our strategies. Models are only one way to organize and display a thought process. Their use is to aid in understanding the implications of choices, in suggesting other choices, and in opening up the territory for informed decision making. This study has shown that options are available that could lead to better management. Contained in this summary is a list of condensed critical findings from the assessments, followed by an overview of the assessments and management strategies from the SNEP reports. 
 
|