Ratings and Rationale

Is cost effective to administer, research & monitor

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.

Scale

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.

3. costs lower than current
2. costs unchanged
1. costs higher than current

Ratings Summary

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

Rating rationale

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

[DEIS Vol 1, Chapter 4, Effects on Vegetation, including Giant Sequoia Groves section.]

To read this section of the Draft EIS online, click here to go to the Limehouse GSNM Comment Portal.

Back to the Top Show All Criteria Return to Find Out