Splat Implementation - Aug 22, 2008

Splat Implementation - Aug 22, 2008 by Linda Blum, at 12:18 p.m. on 9 September 2008,

Back again, Susie:

I just checked the SNAMP website and did not find anything relating to the discussion of Last Chance project SPLAT rationale posted there, so I'm directing this to you again in hopes you'll pass it on.

I came across essentially the same question we were asking in the Last Chance EA's Appendix A, "Scoping Comments and IDT Answer to the Comments," question #8. The USFS response includes the following: "The three SPLATs cover roughly 2,700 acres or 30% of each subwatershed. They were located in areas that were also priority from a density standpoint and designed to connect to and compliment the SPLAT that was created that was created with the Star Fire and follow - up salvage and fuels treatment."

Aside from the fact that the three SPLATs are contiguous rather than being spaced out on the landscape, I'm surprised and bewildered by the phrase "the SPLAT that was created by the Star Fire and follow-up salvage and fuels treatment."

I hope that there will be some sort of occasion within SNAMP to discuss the concept of burned areas becoming and being counted as SPLATs. Would they really produce a Finney Effect? What kind of maintenance and maintenance interval are needed for burned area SPLATs? If adaptive management is to be meaningful, I believe it must also include adaptively learning how to design and plan for future projects.

In addition, later in the same response to scoping comments, Appendix A says, "Not more than 60% of the prescribed fire only areas are predicted to support any burning at all...." This statement raises the question of whether the prescribed burn units already would perform the SPLAT function.

In befuddlement,
Linda Blum

This post is a part of the following discussions: