More On SPLAT Issue

More On SPLAT Issue by Linda Blum, at 9:49 p.m. on 10 October 2008,

Sorry to be so long in acknowledging Susie Kocher's response to my and George Terhune's critiques of SPLATs and the Last Chance Project design.

I appreciate and agree with the reply. But my comment was made more to try to head off what I believe would be an error in just accepting that the project design really reflects what the 2004 Framework directs.

As the Forest Service has taught me repeatedly over the years, there are three kinds of monitoring: implementation, effectiveness, and validation. One's conclusions about the effectiveness of any given treatment are contingent on first determining the extent to which the treatment has been implemented.

So please, UCST, monitor away. I'd just like to have everyone bear in mind that the SPLAT strategy was never described as several contiguous treatments on a ridgetop, surrounded by no other vegetation management.

Indeed, the Last Chance project design looks more like the three-tiered landscape concept advocated in the first Sierra-wide DEIS to follow the CASPO Interim Guidelines, the so-called Cal Owl DEIS. The three-tiered concept might be more effective than strategically scattered treatments in the deeply incised topography of the American River drainages, but such qualifications should be clearly stated. Thanks.

This post is a part of the following discussions: