Administration

SCOPE OF SNEP

Technical Framework

Public Participation

Summary

FACA

CURRENT PAGE:
4 of 13

The philosophical approach taken by SNEP determined the way in which its projects were conducted and the nature of its conclusions.

Independence

In all direction regarding the project, independence of the Science Team and the scientific process was clearly stressed. The Science Team was administered within an academic context (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, UC Davis), and many team members belonged to academic institutions. Several scientists were affiliated with public agencies (U.S. Forest Service, National Biological Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, State of California Resources Agency), but within SNEP these members represented their respective research communities, not organizations.
Several other new or ongoing projects on the Sierra Nevada overlapped the tenure of SNEP, including the USFS CalOwl Assessment and Draft EIS, the state of California CERES program, the California Gap Analysis Project (GAP), the Sierra Nevada Research Planning Program (SNRP), and the California Rivers Assessment Program. SNEP directly coordinated with CERES (see Phase 3: Geographic Information System and On-line Availability), GAP, and the Sierra Nevada Research Planning Program but intentionally worked independently of the CalOwl Project, which was an agency assessment and plan under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) direction.
The nature of SNEPs funding further encouraged independence. SNEP projects were directly funded by Congress and, through congressional appropriation, the U.S. Forest Service. These funds were used as operating budgets for technical assessments, to support the SNEP GIS staff and facilities, to provide salary for support staff, consulting scientists, and some primary SNEP scientists, and to cover project overhead in facilities, printing, and accounting.
Other sources indirectly supported SNEP. Many SNEP scientists salaries were covered by their respective organizations. Associate scientists contributed consultation and statistical and GIS advice and review, and uncounted hours were donated to SNEP projects by resource managers and specialists of agencies and departments in the Sierra Nevada. These latter included the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, state of California, counties, and California Indian tribes.

Process and Collaboration

SNEPs assignment put the Science Team on new ground; no previous assessments provided adequate models. As such, much of the team process and scientific approach summarized in this appendix and implicit in technical reports was newly developed as part of SNEP. Thus, SNEPs contributions are not just data, maps, and analyses, but new approaches to ecosystem analysis and bioregional assessment. One of the unexpected consequences from the approach SNEP took was an implicit collaboration and cooperation among federal, state, local, and private participants. Although SNEP maintained scientific standards and independence as indicated earlier, the critical involvement of people from many sectors meant that assessments and scenarios were not isolated scientific endeavors. The cooperation among team members and associates from different sectors within SNEP presages the collaborative teamsmanship that will enable successful management of Sierran bioregions.

Scientific Approach

SNEP attempted to maintain a scientific approach to team process, including candid presentation of the process. The SNEP team included scientists with differences of opinion, representing diverse schools of thought, ages, backgrounds, and experiences. Rather than minimize these differences in an imperative for team consensus, SNEP intentionally allowed them to flourish during team analysis and the review process. SNEPs intent was to highlight in reports and presentations the areas of team controversy and differing interpretation, describing the justifications, rationale, and assumptions behind interpretations. In so doing, SNEP hoped to demystify the scientific process and to clarify the nature of debate to users of SNEPs products. Although it would make easier reading to present unambiguous conclusions, in many cases, it would be false to imply consensus. By disclosing the process, we hope that the information we present will be understood in the context of the scientific process (including debate, uncertainty, fragmentary evidence) in which it was developed.