Description of the 6 Alternatives

An alternative is a means of meeting the purpose and need for a project or, in our case, amending the Forest Plan for the Monument area. Here, direct from Volume I, Chapter 2 of the DEIS, we have included a brief summary of the alternatives that we studied.

Alternative A - No Action

Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, current management direction would continue to guide management of the Monument through the planning period (about 10 to 15 years). Alternative A includes the management strategies that the Sequoia National Forest has developed to comply with the MSA and the Bush and Clinton proclamations. Under this alternative, no amendment to current direction would be made. Alternative A provides the baseline for the effects analysis in Chapter 4.

Alternative B - the Proposed Action

Alternative B, the proposed action, identifies what changes in management direction are necessary from Alternative A, to comply with the Clinton proclamation. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would protect the objects of interest and manage Monument resources to promote resiliency, adaptability to climate change, and heterogeneity across ecosystems. This alternative responds to the issues of fuels management/community protection and fires spreading to tribal lands. This alternative would continue to provide recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping, developed camping, and motorized travel on designated roads.

Alternative C

Alternative C would protect the objects of interest and manage Monument resources to promote resiliency, adaptability to climate change, and heterogeneity across ecosystems. This alternative responds to the issues of managing the Monument similar to a national park, in particular Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI), and fire affecting adjacent tribal lands. It was developed to manage the Monument similar to SEKI in a manner that is consistent with Forest Service regulation and the direction of the Clinton proclamation. It was determined that some management policies or direction from SEKI would not be applicable to the Monument because of differences in law, regulation, and policy for the two federal agencies. In this alternative, restoration activities would focus on areas that have been affected by human use and occupation.

Alternative D

Alternative D would protect the objects of interest and manage Monument resources to promote resiliency, adaptability to climate change, and heterogeneity across ecosystems. It would rely on naturally occurring fire to reduce fuels in order to protect the objects of interest and to promote giant sequoia regeneration. This alternative responds to the issues of tree removal, fuels management/community protection, and methods for giant sequoia regeneration. It focuses on natural processes with little to no human manipulation. Dispersed and developed camping would still be available, although creation of new sites would be limited.

Alternative E

Alternative E represents management practices, implemented in the Sequoia National Forest that follow the Forest Plan and the MSA, that were modified to comply with the Bush and Clinton proclamations. It would protect the objects of interest and manage Monument resources to promote resiliency, adaptability to climate change, and heterogeneity across ecosystems. This alternative is designed to meet the obligation to consider and analyze the proposed plan amendments contained in the MSA. Alternative E is based on management direction that has evolved to comply with the MSA and the proclamations.

Alternative F

Alternative F would protect the objects of interest and manage Monument resources to promote resiliency, adaptability to climate change, and heterogeneity across ecosystems. This alternative responds to the issues of tree removal, fuels management/community protection, fires spreading to tribal lands, and methods for giant sequoia regeneration. It is similar to Alternative B, except in vegetation management. Alternative F contains no upper diameter limits for tree cutting and removal when clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance or public safety, except for giant sequoias. This would allow more flexibility in treatment methods for forest health and ecological restoration.

If you are seeing this message you have turned linked style sheets off, or totally removed those that manage this website.

If you are seeing this message you have disabled embedded styles or have CSS support turned off altogether..

Description of the 6 Alternatives

Alternative A - No Action

Read more in the Draft EIS

Alternative B - the Proposed Action

Read more in the Draft EIS

Alternative C

Read more in the Draft EIS

Alternative D

Read more in the Draft EIS

Alternative E

Read more in the Draft EIS

Alternative F

Read more in the Draft EIS