Volume 1/Appendix 4/The SNEP Process in Detail

Snep Assignment

ADMINISTRATION

Scope of SNEP

Technical Framework

Public Participation

Summary

FACA

CURRENT PAGE:
3 of 13

ADMINISTRATION

The various charges for SNEP gave direction for staff organization. Nonetheless, SNEPs administration, and the roles played by different groups, evolved over the course of the study.

Steering Committee

The deputy chief for the Forest Service was given authority to establish a science-based Steering Committee, whose job was to initiate and provide administrative guidance for the project. The Steering Committee elected its own chair from within the committee and included representatives from Forest Service Research, Washington Office; National Park Service; University of California; California Academy of Sciences; and National Academy of Sciences (table A4.1).

Table A4.1 (Actual View 8K)

The role given to the Steering Committee was to select the Science Team leader and the Science Team, to assume primary responsibility for public communications, and to provide overall guidance and advice to the Science Team throughout the study.
The role of the Steering Committee changed over time. It fulfilled the obligation of choosing team leaders (held by three different people) and ratifying selections for Science Team members. The Steering Committee initially played only a minor role, however, in interpreting the various charges for SNEPs assignment, in guiding the approach to the study, and in advising on public participation. After the first year of the project, the Steering Committee became more active and worked more closely with the Science Team. The Steering Committee handled the lawsuit that arose in the second year regarding public participation and Federal Advisory Committee Act (see Public Participation). Certain members of the Steering Committee became active reviewers of process and scope, emphasizing the need for explicit statement of assumptions, a practical approach to institutional realities, and the relationship of SNEP to other agencies, Congress, and the Administration. During the review of SNEP reports, the Steering Committee coordinated anonymous peer reviews.

Science Team

According to charge, the technical work of SNEP was to be conducted by an interdisciplinary team of high-caliber, nationally respected scientists with expertise in a wide range of biological, physical, and social sciences pertinent to the Sierra Nevada. Science Team composition grew in several phases during the first year. From an initial small team during the tenure of the first Science Team leader, the core Science Team eventually comprised eighteen Science Team members (so approved by the Steering Committee) and nineteen special consultants (see the lists in appendix 2). Special consultants served roles equal to those of designated Science Team members. This core Science Team comprised the leaders of SNEP projects, authors and coauthors of SNEP technical reports, and main participants in broad as well as specific dialogues about the SNEP strategic approach, direction, and progress. Science Team meetings were held monthly (most for two days) through the course of the project and attended by the core Science Team.
In addition to the thirty-seven scientists who took primary responsibility for the broad SNEP project, a large and diverse group of associates played a critical if narrower role in the project (see list in appendix 2). These associates contributed technical information, reports, and reviews on one or several projects or disciplines. The associate scientists mostly did not participate in the broadest SNEP effort, nor did they regularly attend Science Team meetings but worked through a member of the core Science Team.
SNEP was directed by a Science Team leader, who shouldered executive responsibility for primary decisions about direction, scope, technical framework, philosophical approach, scheduling, and review of SNEP process and products. The Coordinating Committee (table A4.1), comprising six Science Team members including the team leader, provided strategic direction and executive recommendations and decisions on many aspects of the project. The Coordinating Committee met weekly (at times, daily), reviewed broad team approaches, approved direction and progress of Science Team projects, reviewed and recommended annual budgets for Science Team members, arbitrated conflict, interacted with the Steering Committee, and edited and coordinated production of the Progress Report and SNEPs final reports. The Coordinating Committee worked closely with the SNEP Public Participation Committee (table A4.1) and the public key contacts group in their efforts to involve the public with the SNEP process (see Public Participation).

Project Working Groups

Science Team members, together with associates, staff, and select colleagues, formed several working groups during the course of the project. These ranged from technical groups addressing assessments (see Technical Framework), such as the Disturbance Group, the Watershed Group, the Institutions Group, to technical support, such as the GIS Group (see Phase 3: Geographic Information System and On-line Availability, and appendix 3), to SNEP administration, such as the Public Participation Group (see Public Participation) and the SNEP Editorial Group.