| 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
Develops cost offsets
Costs to manage the Monument are either offset by the sale of forest products (chips, logs, etc.) or they are not. This does NOT include special forest products (boughs, cones, etc.) or the sale of personal use firewood.
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.
5. costs offset by greater than 50%
4. costs offset by 31 to 50%
3. costs offset by 21 to 30%
2. costs offset by 11 to 20%
1. costs offset by 0 to 10%
4. costs offset by 31 to 50%
3. costs offset by 21 to 30%
2. costs offset by 11 to 20%
1. costs offset by 0 to 10%
Ratings Summary
| Alternative | Rating based on Draft EIS |
|---|---|
| Alt A | 2. 11-20% (13%) |
| Alt B | 1. 0-10%(8%) |
| Alt C | 1. 0-10%(0%) |
| Alt D | 1. 0-10%(0%) |
| Alt E | 1. 0-10%(6%) |
| Alt F | 3. 21- 30%(26%) |
Rating rationale
The cost of managing the Monument is a significant limiting factor to meeting desired conditions. There is considerable and meaningful public debate about the extent to which costs for vegetation management, whether by fire or mechanical treatment should be offset by selling forest products from the Monument. Alternatives A, B, C, E, and F would allow the sale of wood that is a by-product of tree removal within the Monument. The amount of cost offset for each alternative was estimated using modeling.
Alt A/2-13%
Alt B/1-8%
Alt C/1-0%
Alt D/1-0%
Alt E/1-6%
Alt F/3-26%
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.
To read this section of the Draft EIS online, click here to go to the Limehouse GSNM Comment Portal.