The following was sent to me from George Terhune re. the SPLATs vs DFPZs
Thank you for responding to my comments, though of course that leads to further
comments and questions.
1. If SNAMP is limited to a focus on 'the forest management alternative approved
in the 2004 Record of Decision', how can it be an example of 'adaptive
management'? In any case, you've already gone beyond the SPLAT strategy of the
2004 ROD by including a DFPZ example in the meta-analysis, and that is entirely
proper, because the 2004 ROD acknowledged and supported the demonstration of the
DFPZ strategy mandate by the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act. It's apparent that
Congress intended the strategy to be taken seriously as a candidate for wider
2. I agree that a 'more fruitful exercise' can and should be the next step. But
it should not be to compare implemented DFPZs to a theoretical SPLAT design.
Since it isn't possible to implement both DFPZs and SPLATs on the same ground,
the most useful direct comparisons would be theoretical to theoretical, which
would not only be a fairer comparison, but it would permit manipulation of both
DFPZs and SPLATs over a range of conditions and assumptions. For example, what
performance is delivered by each theory when different percentages of the
landscape have been treated? When the first 10% is treated? Then another 10%
added? Then another 10% added?
One of the largest differences that could be expected to show up would be how
safely and effectiviely fire suppression would be supported by various
implementations of each strategy.
There should also be comparisons under strict and less strict rules regarding
where and when management activity is permitted. Those comparisons are needed to
support management decisions on how best to adapt to rapidly changing
conditions, such as climate change and water supply effects, when balances must
be established among competing priorities.
Finally, there should be comparisons of economic effects from implementing each
strategy, because the amount of treatment that can be done is limited by the
cost efficiency of the management activity, and the availability of the
workforce and industrial infrastructure to do the huge amount of work required
also depends on the economic practicality and efficiency of management
That isn't everything that needs to be done, but maybe it would be a decent
This website is maintained by the UC Science Team, including researchers from UC Berkeley, UC Merced, the University of California Agriculture & Natural Resources, and the University of Minnesota.