Splat Implementation - Aug 20, 2008

Splat Implementation - Aug 20, 2008 by Linda Blum, at 12:16 p.m. on 9 September 2008,

Hi Susie,

Your reactions are right on target, and give me a chance to try to clarify what it is I think we're doing in SNAMP and the Last Chance NEPA process.

The UC Science Team will eventually come to some conclusions about the effects of implementing the 2004 Framework's SPLAT strategy, right? That's the whole point of UC's involvement in SNAMP.

What George and I and others are questioning is whether the Last Chance project is really implementing SPLATs. By asking about the Tahoe's overall landscape SPLAT strategy and Last Chance's place in it, as well as asking about the site-specific rationales for the Last Chance units, we are trying to uncover why the USFS thinks this project is a true implementation of the SPLAT strategy.

What I'm most concerned about is that a bunch of conclusions will be drawn and published about the SPLAT strategy -- and, because UC will be the publisher, those conclusions will immediately take on the gloss of Truth and Science -- when in reality the Finney SPLAT theory will not have been implemented.

Secondary to that concern is the public involvement/public disclosure aspect of how the USFS carries out its NEPA process. By sharing my comments with you and Adriana, I am trying to show the SNAMP Public Participation team how the SPLAT development explanation provided by Karen really doesn't answer the questions we had, but is actually not much more than boilerplate.


This post is a part of the following discussions: