 Background STRATEGIES THE SNEP REPORTS
CURRENT PAGE: 
 
|
|
Strategies Ecosystem assessment findings provide a basis for evaluating where conditions may be heading and how much the Sierra Nevada has changed. The congressional language and background for this study emphasized that the report was to advise Congress on existing and possible future conditions of the old-growth and late successional forests and the ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada. Thus, the team was not asked to prepare a single plan, a range of options for implementation, or preferred alternatives, as in an environmental impact statement process required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Improvements in conditions through remedial actions usually imply a definition of the goals of alternative strategies. SNEP was not charged with selecting the goals for society or the Sierra Nevada ecosystem. However, to devise strategies one must have goals. The team selected goals within the overall charge to the project, to be explicit and to suggest how conditions and trends revealed by the assessments could be changed. Many of our goals were chosen through input from public interaction. Discussions with the public, which continued over the course of the project, became a mutual search for strategies for improved managementnot to find a finite set of the best alternatives but rather to understand better the connections among so many complex parts of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem.  Science team member Constance I. Millar (left) discusses assessment findings with Joan Reiss, environmental consultant. (Photo by Neil Michaels.) Such an exercise may quickly overwhelm easy summary or comprehension because of the infinite combinations or variations of factors that make up the ecosystem. Thus, we chose a small sample of strategies to demonstrate broad choices and implications for meeting the stated goals. The strategies should also educate us on the ways in which parts of the system interact and should lead to a better understanding of unexpected ramifications brought about by human action. No single model of the Sierra that encompasses all interacting parts is possible. We have deliberately chosen several modelsmathematical and nonmathematical, quantitative and qualitativeto illustrate our strategies. Models are only one way to organize and display a thought process. Their utility is to aid in understanding the implications of choices, in suggesting other choices, and in opening up the territory for informed decision making. Some of the strategies required development of new methods or interpretations of scientific knowledge (e.g., areas of late successional emphasis, fuels management). The details and background for these strategies are given in full in the other volumes. The SNEP Reports The complete report of SNEP is contained in four volumes: Volume I contains critical findings, the context for the study, summaries of the major points from the assessments and case studies in the other volumes, and a presentation of alternative strategies and their implications for the future health and sustainability of the ecosystem. Volume II contains the technical assessments of historical, physical, biological, ecological, social, and institutional conditions in the Sierra Nevada, selected case studies, details on the scientific basis and methods used in strategies, and references to the literature and data sources. All chapters in volume II were reviewed extensively, including anonymous peer review secured by the Steering Committee. Volume III includes late submissions of peer-reviewed papers from volume II, additional commissioned reports, and summary listings of workshops and participants. A list of the contents of volumes II and III is included in volume I (appendix 1).  At a September 1995 public workshop in Sacramento, SNEP team member John Sessions (standing) fields questions about simulation models. (Photo by Neil Michaels.) Volume IV is a computer-based catalogue of all public databases, maps, and other digitally stored information used in the project. A major goal of the project was to leave an accessible and usable database containing information, approaches to analysis, and a framework for future study and decision making. These materials are listed under the SNEP name and available on the Internet from the Alexandria Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara and the California Environmental Resource Evaluation System (CERES) project of the Resources Agency of the State of California. A directory of the GIS portion and available data is in appendix 3. The project was conceived as a scientific study by independent scientists. Thus, the reports presented in volumes II and III (and summarized in volume I) are attributable to the authors and follow the usual standards for citation, accuracy, and statement of opinion. Throughout the study, the team fostered debate and welcomed diversity of ideas. At the end, some issues remained in contention among team members and are so noted in the report. Assessment chapters, as in the journals of science, are not intended or written as consensus documents. Understanding complex ideas and recognizing areas of uncertainty come about as much by seeing different views as by studying a single, dominant perspective. But we have made every effort to document the basis in facts, assumptions, knowledge, and inferences that we used in reaching our conclusions. Readers of our reports, by their own analyses of our information, may reach new conclusions. We have intended that the bases for our conclusions and the process of our reasoning be open and available to alternative analyses. No single strategy that we explore is considered comprehensive for all components of the ecosystem or the entire range, and all need specific information on local conditions to be fully useful. If our understanding of the scientific relationships within the ecosystem is correct, then the same understanding may be employed to develop other strategies and even reach other ends. This study has shown us that options are available that could lead to better management. Before a different management policy for the Sierra Nevada ecosystem proceeds, society must define the future vision, the charter for the future Sierra Nevada. Having before us a summing up of this knowledge should help us all make informed choices in the give-and-take of the democratic process. 
 
|