Splat Implementation - Sep 10, 2008

Splat Implementation - Sep 10, 2008 by Susie Kocher, at 1:21 p.m. on 10 September 2008,

Hi Linda and George,

I am emailing to respond to your email comments of several weeks ago that brought up the issue of the current design of the Strategically Placed Area Treatments on the American River District that are being studied by SNAMP. At that time, I made the commitment to you by email that the UC Science Team would consider your comments and respond to them.

The UC Science Team discussed the issue of SPLAT implementation on our conference call on September 4th, 2008. The Science Team concurred that this is an important issue, however, they reaffirmed that it is not appropriate for the researchers to comment or give input to the USFS on treatment design. A key element of our experimental design is to evaluate the impact of forest management treatments as they are implemented by the districts. One agreed upon foundation of the SNAMP project is that project design and implementation is the exclusive role of the Forest Service while evaluating the effects of these projects is the domain of the UC Science Team.

Although we are not able to address your comments about the strategic rationale of the treatments, or whether or not they truly qualify as SPLATs, UC researchers will most definitely be evaluating the spatial pattern of the treatments. Specifically, the Fire and Forest Health Team will be evaluating how the spatial arrangement of the treatments, as implemented, will affect fire behavior at the landscape scale. Results of the effectiveness of the treatment's strategic placements will be reported on by the science team after project implementation and post project data collection.

I believe that the Principle Investigators will also personally respond to your comments now that they have been posted on our website - http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/.

I'd also like to thank you again for your constructive comments and involvement in SNAMP. Conducting a research project of this size and complexity with multiple partners and multiple roles is very challenging. Engagement of the public in some of these difficult issues has been important to the evolution of the project and has served to improve the study plan and hopefully the final product,


This post is a part of the following discussions: