265 



1) The scope of the project; 



As originalh planned specific direction included the following elements with respect to the scope 

 of the project. 



a) delineation of various ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada forests 



b) inventorv' of land and resources associated with each ecosystem 



c) evaluation of current health and trends 



d) identification of factors affecting health conditions and trends 



e) recommendations of alternative strategies with associated risks and economic analyses 



f) examination of the Mediated Settlement Agreement for the Sequoia National Forest 

 The process for analysis is logical and one which was supported generally by the industry and 

 state of California. However, there is general agreement that the SNEP team has gone beyond 

 the intent of the original H.R. 6013. 



2) The current status and cost of the project; 



Initial plans for completion of the draft of the SNEP report called for completion by December 

 1994 with a final report due by December of 1995. Our best information now indicates that the 

 final document will be available sometime in late Jime of 1996. Unforttmately, by failing to 

 produce a draft document, the SNEP team has effectively preempted public and political review. 

 This is particularly fioistrating given the FACA exemption and has led to considerable 

 apprehension over the content of the document particularly in light of the advocacy positions a 

 number of the scientists involved in the process have taken. This apprehension was heightened 

 by leaks of the document to prominent newspapers. 



From a cost standpoint, original Congressional Budget Office estimates to complete the 

 study indicated that the cost of H.R. 6013 would be $2 million. Estimates of the total cost of the 

 report as undertaken by the SNEP group is over $7 million. Given the difference in the estimated 

 cost and money which will actually be spent, questions need to be raised about why this 

 magnitude of difference exists. 



3) The relationship of the assessment to the national forest plans; 



The relationship to the national forest plans is unclear. So is the relationship to the 

 current CALOWL EIS. In many ways, the SNEP effort has duplicated the efforts of the 



