Administration

SCOPE OF SNEP

Technical Framework

Public Participation

Summary

FACA

CURRENT PAGE:
5 of 13

Peer review is part of the scientific tradition. SNEPs reports went through multiple cycles of review by different reviewer groups, the sum of which accounted for greater scrutiny than most scientists encounter in normal scientific journal or book publishing. The SNEP Coordinating Committee directed most of the review processes, except the anonymous reviews of the final reports, which were coordinated by the Steering Committee. All SNEP projects resulting in reports initially were submitted in proposal format, elaborating proposed rationale, justification, and methods. Before submission to the Coordinating Committee, these were reviewed by Science Team colleagues and then reviewed by the Coordinating Committee. Preliminary results of technical projects were presented to an external group of science reviewers at a Science Team meeting in May 1995, at which time critical comments were solicited.
Final reports were subject to review as follows: internal reviews by a minimum of five Science Team members, external review by three anonymous reviewers, and review by a variable number of public key contacts (see Public Participation). Review forms were used to track each manuscript. An editorial board of two SNEP Science Team members coordinated the review process by tracking review comments, assuring that review comments were incorporated in revisions, and granting final approval of revised manuscripts. Draft reports for which substantive comments were raised were brought to the attention of the Coordinating Committee, and appropriate actions (e.g., new authors added, workshops convened) were taken to bring the report to SNEP standards.
In addition to peer review of technical approach and content, SNEP conducted reviews with the public (see Public Participation).

Assessment, Not Plan

SNEPs responsibility was to provide a scientific evaluation of trends and consequences, not decision making or planning. Throughout the project, the public often confused SNEP with a NEPA or California Environmental Quality Act analysis (such as CalOwl or FEMAT), which it was not. The primary difference is that, although both approaches undertake scientific analysis of conditions and trends, SNEPs recommendations for the future are nonbinding examples, not plans. SNEP was educational in nature: presenting new information, interpretations, and suggestions. With its strategies, SNEP presented a grab bag of tools, models, and suggestions for how to address some of the most important ecosystem problems confronting the bioregion. In most cases, SNEPs recommendations would not directly translate into on-the-ground plans but were intentionally conceived at a design level, although SNEP did consider aspects of management and institutional implementation. Any work done to translate SNEPs suggestions into real policy or management actions would entail further analysis of local implications, a task that was beyond the ability and responsibility of SNEP scientists.
The Science Team focused on technical analysis, assessment, interpretation, integration, and creative modeling. SNEP objectives were to unveil myths about resource conditions, raise red flags about problem areas, provide centralized and retrievable data and maps, interpret multidisciplinary information synthetically, and display in clear language potential designs to solve major problems in the Sierra. SNEP assessments attempted to be comprehensive and exhaustive; strategies developed were intentionally illustrative and representative. SNEP scientists strove to present material in a way that could be effectively passed to decision makers. Despite best intentions, the temptation to make comprehensive and exclusive recommendations was strong and unavoidable, and some bias undoubtedly remains in reports.

Data Compilation and Synthesis

Although a scientific assessment project, SNEP was directed by assignment not to undertake new or primary research. The Science Team therefore compiled preexisting data but reached deep for information beyond standard published scientific articles. Although SNEP scientists maintained a data-quality standard, they used information from agency files, consultations with experts and specialists, applicable evidence from studies in adjacent bioregions, projections from theory and simulations, historical files, and even anecdotes and historical photos. New simulation models were built in some cases (as in, for example, simulations of forest conditions), and new methods for evaluating conditions (e.g., variable riparian buffers, late successional forest categories). In the latter case, new data plots were installed and analyzed to validate the categories and ranks employed by SNEP.
SNEP scientists were requested by congressional charge to make evaluations about status and condition. Because of the generally poor data quality, the lack of preexisting information, the requirement not to do new research, and the short time frame to complete the work, making evaluative statements required each scientist to extend him- or herself. SNEP scientists were fulfilling their obligation by making professional judgment statements and inferences. For many, this was the most difficult and professionally challenging aspect of the project.