266 



CALOWL team. SNEP has relied heavily on the CALOWL database with respect to mapping 

 and Geographic Information Systems support. From the outset, the CALOWL EIS emphasized 

 ecosystem analysis on a watershed/landscape basis. The two efforts seem to be on largely 

 parallel courses, although the NEPA process utilized through the EIS development clearly 

 provided all segments of the public with opportunities for input that were not available through 

 the SNEP process. At a cost of approximately $2 million the CALOWL effort seems to be a 

 bargain. 



4) The applicability of the assessment to public and private lands; 



In the beginning, SNEP scientists actively sought information regarding private land 

 management activities. Potential for impacts on private lands in the Sierra are high depending on 

 the management strategies developed by the SNEP team. Unfortunately, while the SNEP team 

 sought information from private landowners, we were not afforded the same courtesy with 

 respect to answering questions regarding how the information would be used and what scenarios 

 would be developed. This did little to raise our confidence in the SNEP process. 



5) How the public has been involved in the process; 



Public involvement in terms of ability to participate and comment on draft management 

 scenarios has been limited. SNEP has held scoping sessions, briefing sessions and published 

 newsletters to identify issues and keep the public informed on progress towards completing the 

 report. SNEP has also published the scientific reports to be used as the basis for the assessment. 

 However, the process has not developed a draft available for anything but scientific peer review. 

 This has effectively eliminated public and political input. 



6) The type of decision and expected results; 



The SNEP document is not to be a decision document. It is a study being prepared for 

 Congress. Our fear is that political infighting will result in reaching a decision on the CALOWL 

 EIS while waiting for the SNEP report. Given that the SNEP report is not to be a decision 

 document, delaying implementation of the CALOWL EIS and Record of Decision is clearly 

 unwarranted. There is a clear and present need to begin managing the Sierra Nevada national 

 forests to restore health and fire resistance to a number of ecosystems at risk. The 

 implementation of the preferred alternative in the CALOWL EIS will be a major step along this 



