WHOLE SYSTEMS
The strategies collectively consider the Sierra Nevada to be a whole system. Although
individual SNEP strategies are incomplete, they show how actual solutions must address
not just parts of the system but also the ways in which parts interact to create
the whole. The full scope of those interactions brings together things hitherto considered
separate: core forest areas and matrix, people and nature, regions within and regions
outside the Sierra.
The strategies emphasize sustainable management over the entire landscape. For example,
the areas of late successional emphasis (ALSE) strategy incorporates management of
the lands between core areas of late successional emphasis (i.e., the matrix) and
management of core areas themselves. Similarly, the biodiversity management area (BMA)
strategy depends largely on the contribution of lands outside the BMAs. The distributed
forest conditions strategy proposes that sustainability of late successional forests emerge as a property of an entire landscape, not small reserved portions thereof.
Reserves, when discussed, are viewed as part of a larger conservation strategy. Managing
the entire landscape for ecosystem sustainability requires that public and private
resources and lands be considered together, along with the suite of institutions and
rights associated with them.
The diversity of the strategies indicates that addressing whole systems means confronting
the full range of system components: physical, biological, and social. The system
consists not just of biological structures, such as old-growth stands, but also of
ecological functions and human communitiesboth communities of place within the Sierra
and communities of interest elsewhere in the state and nation. SNEP strategies illustrate
these components and scales and demonstrate how components could be linked in practice.
The strategies also reveal different scales within the larger Sierran ecosystem. Some
strategies respond to regional issues: for example, air quality in the southern Sierra,
distributed forest conditions in the eastern Sierra, county buildout on the west
slope. Others address truly rangewide concerns: for example the BMAs, ALSEs, and aquatic
strategies. The aquatic and air-quality strategies suggest a scale that extends far
beyond the range itself.
Finally, the whole system is not static but rather changes over time. The fire strategy
addresses a significant source of change in the Sierra and also emphasizes our uncertainty
about the historic scope of fire and the risks associated with its purposeful application. Social dimensions of the mountain range change as well. These dynamics
are addressed by the county buildout and community well-being strategies. The nature
of change requires that management approaches be flexible enough to learn from and
adapt to changing ecological and social conditions.
The view of the Sierra as a whole system, or a web of biological and social influences
stretching over and beyond the range and evolving over time, suggests that no easy
policy or technical fix can be implemented in the Sierra Nevada. Many institutions
will absorb, elaborate, and recast SNEP strategies to find solutions. Congressional involvement
is essential to recasting policy in the Sierra. Existing federal laws constitute
part of the web of influences that have served to bring parties together in search of new solutions. The rest of the web is composed of important state and local institutions
and their associated laws and policies, as well as affected parties and stakeholders
wherever they live. Considerations of cost, local variation in landscape attributes and their conditions, different patterns of land ownership and human communities,
as well as other varying factors argue for flexible program design and implementation.
