Administration

Scope of SNEP

Technical Framework

Public Participation

Summary

FACA

CURRENT PAGE:
1 of 13

The Snep Process in Detail

This is not intended as critical reviewthat will come laterbut to aid the reader in understanding the human, technical, and societal context in which SNEP worked. Our hope is that by understanding this context, those who use our products will recognize the power as well as the limitations of our conclusions and in so doing more effectively translate this new information into action.

SNEP ASSIGNMENT

One of the difficulties SNEP faced initially was in interpreting the several charges it received. The different sources of SNEP assignments resulted in debate over authority, priority of issues, scope, and type of analysis. The request from Congress that gave rise to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project came in two forms. The 1993 Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, as authorized by H.R. 5503 (1992 Congress), allocated $150,000 for an old-growth forest assessment of the Sierra Nevada. The House Committee on Agriculture also approved H.R. 6013 (Sierra Nevada Forest Ecosystems Study Act of 1992), which called for a comprehensive ecosystem assessment of the entire Sierra Nevada. The intent of H.R. 6013 was read into the record, but it fell victim to adjournment so was never formally approved. Because both bills eventually strongly guided SNEP, as explained later, their content is summarized here.

H.R. 5503

The Conference Report for Interior and Related Agencies 1993 Appropriations Act 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.
In a letter to the chief of the Forest Service explaining the intent of the appropriation language, the chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, Merchant Marine, and Fisheries, along with the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies and other interested legislators, reiterated the call for a scientific review of the remaining late successional old growth in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada and a study of the entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem. The letter further stated that the reviews immediate objective should be to produce maps identifying the old-growth forest ecosystems and key watersheds on national forest lands in the Sierra Nevada range and the plant and animal species associated with those ecosystems.
According to the letter, the study should also evaluate different alternatives for protecting the old-growth Sierra Nevada forests and key watersheds, in terms of risks to the ecosystem and associated species and effects on timber harvest levels and other management activities, and should determine whether reserves are needed to protect old-growth and watershed values. Recommendations for management of forest and rangelands within and outside such reserves were requested as well.

H.R. 6013

The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Study Act of 1992 called for the establishment of a scientific committee to accomplish six tasks:

1. Delineate the various ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada forests.

2. Inventory the resources of these ecosystems, including watersheds and late successional forests, and the species associated with them.

3. Evaluate the health conditions and trends of these ecosystems.

4. Identify the processes, activities, and other factors that affect the health conditions and trends of these ecosystems, including drought, fire and fire suppression, timber harvest and forest practices, disease infestations, livestock grazing, urban and residential development, water projects, forest regeneration, soil erosion, and air quality.

5. Recommend alternative management strategies to protect Sierra Nevada ecosystems, including watersheds and late successional forests and their associated species, and to assess whether reserves are necessary to maintain the health of the Sierra forest ecosystems. Additionally, if the Science Team finds that reserves are necessary, to designate which lands should be included; recommendation of each alternative management strategy is to include both a discussion of the risks it would pose to the ecosystem and an economic analysis that evaluates impacts on jobs, county revenues, and timber supplies to local, state, and national markets.

6. Examine the Mediated Settlement Agreement for Sequoia National Forest relative to the management of giant sequoia groves and whether additional lands are needed to ensure the health and survival of the giant sequoia ecosystem.

Finally, H.R. 6013 called for a team of scientists to conduct the study with the following areas of expertise represented: forest ecology (old growth), forest ecology (managed forests), wildlife biology, forest economics, silviculture, hydrology, fish biology, forest fire management, forest entomology, range ecology, and risk analysis.