|Return to the Home page of this website||Go to DEIS Document itself||How to comment on the DEIS||Background and help pages|
Ratings and Rationale
The plan is cost-effective to administer. Alternatives differ in how resources, mainly vegetation, fire and fuels, and wildlife habitat would be managed. Therefore, the alternatives differ in the initial direct cost for management activities. This does not take into account the potential for secondary costs for management activities. All alternatives would require research and monitoring. Ratings are based on the cost to implement each alternative's proposals compared to current costs.
All alternatives require research and monitoring.
Ratings are based on change in price to implement compared to current costs. Any of these could be/or not, depends on details and how implemented.
2. costs unchanged
1. costs higher than current
|Alternative||Rating based on Draft EIS|
|Alt A||2. costs unchanged|
|Alt B||2. costs unchanged|
|Alt C||3. costs lower than current|
|Alt D||3. costs lower than current|
|Alt E||1. costs higher than current|
|Alt F||2. costs unchanged|
Alternatives A, B, and F should not have much change in cost from current amounts (not considering inflation).
Alternatives C and D should have lower costs because fewer mechanical treatments would be used. There would be more dependence on managed wildfire and prescribed fire, and fewer acres would be treated.
Alternative E would be more expensive to administer as it would require more site-specific analyses.
For further details, read the following section in the DEIS
To read this section of the Draft EIS online, click here to go to the Limehouse GSNM Comment Portal.