I appreciate the challenge with identifying a site and ensuring it remains unaffected by the adaptive management study. I applaud the team for its position, “The UCST continued to emphasize the need to ensure that what they are studying represents the “normal” routine management activities as guided by the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD)”. However, I noted a later comment, “This will allow for mutual planning of SPLAT placement to maximize research goals”. I find that at odds with the earlier statement. As an independent, shouldn’t the UCST only monitor the results of the FS and not be involved in anyway with the placement of the SPLATs?

The field notes alluded several times to the SNAMP goals. These are probably articulated somewhere, but if they will control the selection of the site and perhaps the “mutual planning of the SPLAT placement”, they should be headlined somewhere.

I would suggest that as this project moves forward, that the UCST also select two other sites, one in the north and one in the south, near these areas, for the purpose of comparison between the projects that are approved in the study sites and the projects approved in these non-study sites to determine the degree that the projects really are typical and not altered because of the adaptive management study.

This post is a part of the following discussions: