Ratings and Rationale

Here are the ratings of the alternatives for each subcriterion, based on the Draft EIS and an explanation of the Forest Service's rationale for those ratings. This section was written by the Forest Service.

Subcriteria with Ratings & Rationale

Geology (spires, domes, caves)

The Monument has many geologic features and landforms that include caves, hot springs, soda springs, domes, spires and glacial moraines. The Proclamation describes caves and other geologic resources as follows: "The Monument is dominated by granitic rocks, most noticeable as domes and spires in areas such as the Needles. The magnificent Kern Canyon forms the eastern boundary of the Monument's southern unit... Particularly in the northern unit of the Monument, limestone outcrops, remnants of an ancient seabed, are noted for their caves."

Current management direction for caves and other geologic features allows for open access to most of the caves within the Monument by the public, with the exception of Boyden Cave and Church Cave. Boyden and Church Caves are managed to allow access under a permit system. Potential impacts to caves from fire suppression activities include changes to cave biochemistry. Unmanaged use of cave systems from human interaction could also disrupt the natural ecological processes of caves from changes in chemistry and hydrology.

Domes and Spires: Potential impacts from wildfire suppression include fire retardant drops on domes and spires. At a minimum, this affects the color of the natural rock on the natural geologic feature, which can be aesthetically unpleasing. Natural weathering to remove fire retardant could take decades. Wildfire suppression efforts in the past fires in the Sequoia National Forest have resulted in fire retardant drops on existing domes and spires. Impacts to domes and spires from fire suppression activities could also affect the flora on rock outcrops.

Potential impacts from recreation activities on domes and spires include climbing hardware left on rocks, where rock climbing is popular. These include the Needles, Buck Rock, Dome Rock, Chimney Rock, Sentinel Peak - Elephant Knob, and the many other domes and spires in the Monument. Hardware includes rock bolts and webbing material used to anchor rock climbers and provide some level of protection to them. The activity of drilling or wedging anchors in rocks has minimal impact and does not affect any feature of the dome or spire.

Soda Springs and Hot Springs: Impacts to soda springs and hot springs could occur from increased recreation activity, such as open access to these resources. People may camp around the springs and could damage the banks by creating tubs, or simply by getting in and out.

Geologic objects of interest vary in their level of protection by alternative. A geologic object of interest could have a high level of protection (well protected) or have no protection. For example, protection can mean no access or minimum access to objects of interest, or establishment of standards and guidelines to protect the objects of interest. Minimizing access would reduce or eliminate opportunities for graffiti and other recreation-related damage at an object of interest site. On the other hand, if access is minimized, opportunities for people to enjoy the object of interest would be lost. Protection could also include guidelines for use of fire retardant in the Monument to protect rock outcrop areas for vegetative communities dependent on them. No protection could mean open access to all sites and no restrictions on use of the objects of interest. No protection could include having a road system that accesses most geologic objects of interests. Open access and no restrictions on use at geologic objects of interest could result in damage to and loss of a site to future generations.

Scale

5. well protected
4. fairly well protected
3. moderate protection
2. little protection
1. no protection

Ratings Summary

Based on the average of the ratings discussued below:

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. moderate protection
Alt B	4. fairly well protected
Alt C	4. fairly well protected
Alt D	3. moderate protection
Alt E	3. moderate protection
Alt F	4. fairly well protected

Rating rationale

Ratings vary by type of geological feature:

Protection of caves

B, F/5-because of the geological interest areas proposed in these two alternatives.
D/3-increased potential of fire to move into watersheds, more focus on fires, and more extensive areas of high fire severity. This alternative would allow fires at the cave entrance, causing rock to expand and break off, causing additional erosion and sediment from soil damage, or causing smoke to enter caves and impact cave resources.
C/4-although it has a similar concern with fire as in D, the potential for cave access would be decreased.
A, E/3-both are based on what we're doing now to protect caves.

Protection of spires and domes

A, E/3-based on what we're doing now to protect spires and domes.
D/3-increased possibility of fire retardant drops due to an increase in fire severity.
C/4-although it has a similar concern with fire retardant as in D, the potential for access is decreased.
B, F/4-less fire risk due to more mechanical treatments to reduce fuel loads. Recreation effects would be decreased because of the focus of recreation management to minimize impacts.

Protection of hot springs and soda springs

A, E/3-based on what we're doing now to protect hot springs and soda springs.
D/3-increased threat of a fire destroying a streamside management zone (SMZ), which could impact the springs; however, new sites would not be developed for recreation use.
C/3-increased threat of a fire destroying an SMZ, and potential decrease in access.
B, F/4-because recreation would focus on not impacting springs.

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Geological Resources section.]

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

Back to the Top

Individually named Giant Sequoia

Protect from human impacts and wildfire. Named trees should be protected individually (note that most giant sequoias are protected as part of an ecosystem or through management of processes).

Note - not many individually-named giant sequoia trees (by policy) [There are some the public has named that the Forest Service does not recognize]. The currently named trees are all recreation destinations (the Boole Tree, Bush Tree, and Chicago Stump).

Some of these individuals have a lot of trees growing around them, making them hard to see and vulnerable to fire. All named giant sequoias are to be protected from fire by pulling fuels away from the base and pruning ladder fuels if necessary during fuels reduction activities.

Giant sequoia groves are mapped. If there is a fire, their position is well known to protect them.

People want to touch, crawl in them, pull off bark, etc., so there is a need to prevent overuse. There is the risk of being "loved to death." However, public access to these individuals is important to maintain to comply with the intent of the Clinton proclamation.

Scale

5. high level protection
4. fairly high protection
3. some protection
2. minimal protection
1. no protection

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. some protection
Alt B	3. some protection
Alt C	3. some protection
Alt D	3. some protection
Alt E	3. some protection
Alt F	3. some protection

Rating rationale

Strategies are in place that provide direction to protect the named giant sequoias in all alternatives.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Vegetation section.]

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

Back to the Top

Individual cultural resources

Many historic and prehistoric features are best protected as individual objects. These include lithic scatters, rock shelters, and pictographs.

Scale

5. negligible or minor short term impacts to cultural resources
4. minor long term impacts to cultural resources
3. moderate short term impacts to cultural resources
2. moderate long term impacts to cultural resources
1. major permanent impacts to cultural resources

Scale Explanation

Impact

Negligible-Impacts would be barely perceptible changes in significant characteristics of a historic property.
Minor: Impacts would be perceptible and noticeable, but would remain localized and confined to a single element or significant characteristic of a historic property (such as a single archaeological site containing low data potential within a larger archaeological district or a single contributing element of a larger historic district)
Minor-Impacts would be perceptible and noticeable, but would remain localized and confined to a single element or significant characteristic of a historic property (such as a single archaeological site containing low data potential within a larger archaeological district, or a single contributing element of a larger historic district).
Major-Impacts would result in substantial and highly noticeable changes in significant characteristics of a historic property.

Duration

Duration plays a key role in the overall effect; impacts of minor intensity over a long duration may have the same effect on the characteristics of the cultural resources as would impacts of moderate intensity over a short duration. Impacts to historic properties (cultural resources) could be of a short-term, long-term, or permanent duration.

Unlike most other resource values, cultural resources are basically non-renewable resources. Damage or destruction to cultural resource sites is generally permanent. Effects on some cultural resources, such as the upgrading of windows in an historical building with non-compatible materials (wooden-framed windows to aluminum-framed windows), can be reversed; however, until that happens, the effect is ongoing and potentially adverse.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. minor long term impacts to cultural resources
Alt B	5. negligible or minor short term impacts to cultural resources
Alt C	3. moderate short term impacts to cultural resources
Alt D	1. major permanent impacts to cultural resources<
Alt E	2. moderate long term impacts to cultural resources
Alt F	5. negligible or minor short term impacts to cultural resources

Rating rationale

Alternative A would be the second best in protecting cultural resources because there are laws and regulations currently in place.

Alternatives B and F would provide the greatest protection because they have the least potential to affect cultural resources due to large WUI zones and the TFETA, stable transportation, and the most balanced cultural resource management program.

Alternative C Alternative C would provide moderate protection due to areliance on managed wildfire and a reduction in dispersed camping.

Alternative D would provide the least protection to cultural resources due to a reliance on managed wildfire and smaller fuels reduction areas.

Alternative E would provide the second to the least protection because there is the potential for an increase in designated Wilderness and less planned fuels reduction.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Cultural Resources section.]

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

Back to the Top

Individual threatened and endangered species

Individual species and individuals within the species must be protected under the Endangered Species Act as well as the Proclamation. Note: the Pacific fisher is a candidate species for listing, and not currently listed as a Threatened or Endangered (TE) species (see Diversity of flora and fauna species subcriteria).

Currently there are four federally-listed TE species that may be affected by the Monument Plan (Springville clarkia, California condor, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and little Kern golden trout). These species are adapted to the Mediterranean climate of this area; they may have evolved with recurrent fires affecting their habitat. Impacts to individuals and their critical habitat are more likely to occur from mechanical treatments.

Scale

5. all disturbance is natural processes (including fire)
4. high natural/minimal mechanical disturbance
3. moderate natural/mechanical disturbance
2. minimal natural/high mechanical disturbance
1. all disturbance is mechanical

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. moderate natural/mechanical disturbance
Alt B	3. moderate natural/mechanical disturbance
Alt C	4. high natural/minimal mechanical disturbance
Alt D	4. high natural/minimal mechanical disturbance
Alt E	3. moderate natural/mechanical disturbance
Alt F	3. moderate natural/mechanical disturbance

Rating rationale

Alternatives C and D focus on management through natural processes, including use of prescribed fire and managed wildfire to treat wildlife habitat. They both allow mechanical treatments on a limited basis, with D more limited than C.

Alternatives A, B, and E prioritize the tools for fuels reduction and allow prescribed fire and managed wildfire in combination, or as secondary tools, to treat wildlife habitat.

Alternative F does not prioritize the tools for fuels reduction, but does rely on mechanical treatments.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Wildlife and Plant Habitat, Effects on Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species section.]

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

Back to the Top

Diversity of flora and fauna species

There is a diverse array of wildlife species found in the Monument, including Forest Service sensitive species such as the Pacific fisher, northern goshawk, California spotted owl, and great gray owl.

Sensitive species are generally protected, especially wildlife habitat features, through protecting critical habitat features used as nesting or denning sites. The goal is to maintain a diversity of habitats distributed throughout the Monument. Like the TE species, these species have evolved in this Mediterranean climate with a fairly high fire frequency.

Scale

Vegetation management projects for fuels reduction and ecological restoration may impact wildlife habitat by reducing canopy cover and removing key habitat features (large trees, snags, down woody debris). All of the alternatives would set the highest priority for fuels reduction activities in the wildland urban intermix (WUI) zones. Different types of management tools (mechanical versus prescribed fire or managed wildfire) can have different impacts on wildlife habitat.

The acres of wildlife habitat in areas with the highest likelihood of vegetation treatments, such as WUI defense zones, threat zones, and the Tribal Fuels Emphasis Treatment Area (TFETA), are likely to be affected. The type of tool and frequency of entry determine the potential to affect critical wildlife habitat in these areas.

5. no impacts to habitat
4. minimal impacts to habitat
3. moderate impacts to habitat
2. moderately high impacts
1. high impacts to habitat

Ratings Summary

Alternative	rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. moderate impacts to habitat
Alt B	3. moderate impacts to habitat
Alt C	4. minimal impacts to habitat
Alt D	4. minimal impacts to habitat
Alt E	3. moderate impacts to habitat
Alt F	3. moderate impacts to habitat

Rating rationale

Alts A and E - Alts A and E - WUI defense zones would cover 45,342 acres (13%) and threat zones 145,522 acres (41%) of the Monument.

Alts B and F - WUI defense zones would cover 45,342 acres (13%) and threat zones 145,522 acres (41%) of the Monument. A TFETA of 56,626 acres would be established along the border with the Tule River Indian Reservation.

Alt C - WUI defense zones would cover approximately 8,090 acres or 2% of the Monument. A TFETA of 56,626 acres would be established along the border with the Tule River Indian Reservation.

Alt D - WUI defense zones would cover 4,619 acres or 1% of the Monument.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Wildlife and Plant Habitat, Effects on Forest Service Sensitive Species section.]

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

Back to the Top

Resilience to Disturbance

Stand resilience is an ecosystem characteristic that involves consideration of many factors such as adaptation or resistance to change. Traits of adaptation include heterogeneity within and between species (genetic and species diversity), active foliar leaf area (basal area, percent stocking, species abundance, leaf area index, etc.), vegetation age, insect and disease populations, soil water availability and hydrologic recharge, and topographic position. Species distribution and abundance, rather than diversity are more important factors since diversity, excepting natural and inevitable extinctions, is not likely to change in the Monument in upcoming years.

Resistance to change, often synonymous to adaptation, may involve tree height, bark thickness, rooting depth, and other factors that may allow trees or other organisms to endure environmental conditions that would otherwise contribute to stand replacement mortality. Resistance may also involve the application of treatments designed to protect sensitive species and high value trees from changes in elements such as insect or fire (Millar et al. 2007). In the Monument, a key desired condition is resilient stands that are similar to the more open past structures with less understory vegetation and fuels. Thus, for silviculturists and forest ecosystem ecologists, restoration is commonly synonymous with resiliency.

Scale

5. Greater than 60%
4. 31-60%
3. 16 - 30%
2. 6 - 15%
1. 0 - 5%

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Mean Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. 16 - 30%
Alt B	3. 16 - 30%
Alt C	2. 6 - 15%
Alt D	1. 0 - 5%
Alt E	3. 16 - 30%
Alt F	4. 31-60%

Rating rationale

The ratings for stand or ecological resiliency listed below contain both subjective and measurable estimates. The major focus is on the structural components of the ecosystem. These are the easiest to visualize and measure. Thus, they serve as a surrogate for moisture, nutrient, and energy flow within an ecosystem. Responses are dynamic, changing not only with climate but with time. The best forest ecosystem science available utilizes the concepts and anticipated responses of silvicultural stand management, which employs a wide variety of prescriptions such as burning, mechanical, and a wait-and-see approach.

Ratings for Sub-criteria

Sub-criterion1 is the percent of the desired 6,000 acres per year, while Sub-criterion 2 is the percent of treatments done solely for resiliency

Sub-criterion1: Treatments that accomplish some restoration (acres)
     A= 2067; sub-rating=4
     B= 2364; sub-rating=4
     C= 1240; sub-rating=3
     D=358; sub-rating=2
     E= 2128; sub-rating=4
     F=2381; sub-rating=4

For further details on this sub-subcriterion, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Vegetation, Effects of Alternatives and Climate on Forest Ecological Restoration and Resiliency section.]

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

Sub-criterion2: Treatments designed solely for restoration (acres)
    A= 3; percent of total= 0; sub-rating=1
    B= 0; percent of total= 0; sub-rating=1
    C= 0; percent of total= 0; sub-rating=1
    D=0; percent of total= 0; sub-rating=1
    E= 7; percent of total= 0; sub-rating=1
    F=503; percent of total= 21; sub-rating=3

For further details on this sub-subcriterion, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Vegetation, Effects of Fire Treatments on Forest Vegetation section.]

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

Alternative averages (see table above)

    A= 3
    B= 3
    C= 2
    D= 1
    E= 3
    F= 4

The consideration of total acres treated would leave a reader to assume each treatment had an equal effect on stand resilience. This is not so. Treatments that provide more root zone for trees to access water and nutrients, and more sunlight to support photosynthesis, may be critical in acquiring or maintaining stand resiliency. Consideration of resiliency also assumes that, at some time, a portion within or adjacent to the Monument will be subjected to a wanted or unwanted fire. Therefore, treatments that reduce fuels adequately to protect soils and desired species from the adverse effects of fire contribute greatly to stand resiliency. Each alternative proposes different levels of intensity and amounts of treatment, but the quantitative measure below is a general rating using only acres. Intuitively, Alternative D, as the most restrictive, would allow the fewest opportunities to manage for resilience, while Alternative F would allow the most. In order to provide some measure to account for treatment differences, treatments designed solely for the purpose of restoration were figured into the rating along with total acres treated.

Back to the Top

Mixed conifer

Mixed conifer is one of the ecosystems to be protected. Mixed conifer ecosystems include white fir, pine, incense cedar, and black oak, and constitute a major portion of the Sierra Nevada forests. Protection may be needed to avoid unwanted fire and forest health issues caused by drought stresses including insect and disease, or to improve the seral progression, structure and function of forested stands.

Mixed conifer is one of the ecosystems to be protected. Mixed conifer ecosystems include white fir, pine, incense cedar, and black oak, and constitute a major portion of Sierra Nevada forests. Protection may be needed to avoid unwanted fire and forest health issues caused by drought stresses such as insect and disease, or to improve the seral progression, structure, and function of forested stands.

People are concerned about the circumstances under which a tree may be removed. There is considerable and meaningful public debate about the conditions under which trees need to be cut, and about when and in what form a tree should be removed from the Monument.

Forest Supervisor Terrell issued an interpretation of the Clinton proclamation clarifying that: 1) trees may need to be cut as part of the treatment of biomass for ecological restoration activities and safety, and 2) the term "removal" in the context of "tree removal" is defined as "to take away or off the Monument."

Scale

5. flexibility in tree removal
4. somewhat flexible
3. minimal flexibility
2. rare flexibility
1. no flexibility

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. minimal flexibility
Alt B	3. minimal flexibility
Alt C	1. no flexibility
Alt D	1. no flexibility
Alt E	2. rare flexibility
Alt F	4. somewhat flexible

Rating rationale

All the alternatives would allow tree removal in the form of smoke from prescribed fire and as fuelwood under the appropriate permit. Alternatives A, B, E, and F would allow tree removal as wood products such as chips and sawlogs.

When tree removal is a result of cutting a tree, diameter limits describe the size of trees that may be removed, and standards and guidelines describe the locations, circumstances, and conditions to which they apply. These diameter limits and standards and guidelines determine the options available and the flexibility allowed for managers to protect mixed conifer forests.

Alternative/Rating- Rationale (feasible acres treated for tree removal, estimated from modeling)
Alt A/3 - approximately 500 ac.; moderate amount treated relative to the budget.
Alt B/3 - approximately 500 ac.; moderate amount treated relative to the budget.
Alt C/1 - less than 100 ac.; mostly burn.
Alt D/1 - less than 100 ac.; most limited in terms of area treated and tools available.
Alt E/2 - approximately 300 ac.; less treatment for restoration.
Alt F/4 - approximately 800 ac.; treats the most area, using the most tools and forms of removal at the lowest cost per acre.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Vegetation section.]

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

Back to the Top

Mixed conifer emphasizing groves

Though technically giant sequoias are part of the mixed conifer ecosystem, they are of such importance in the Proclamation that they would be evaluated separately.

Apply appropriate management to promote regeneration of giant sequoias. This includes knowing when to plant, and whether to use mechanical treatments and/or burning to prepare the seed beds. In addition, how climate change may affect the extent of the naturally-occurring sequoia groves and may affect giant sequoia regeneration.

Create desirable environment (methods for accomplishing) for giant sequoia regeneration. This includes providing openings in the forest canopy, reducing surface and ladder fuels, and exposing mineral soil to the extent that sequoias will germinate and thrive.

Scale

3. provides best environments for giant sequoia regeneration
2. moderate environmental opportunities
1. provides little assistance for giant sequoia regeneration

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	1. provides little assistance
Alt B	1. provides little assistance
Alt C	1. provides little assistance
Alt D	1. provides little assistance
Alt E	2. moderate environmental opportunities
Alt F	2. moderate environmental opportunities

Rating rationale

Current direction allows for and protects giant sequoia regeneration but we are currently unable to do it. Protecting giant sequoia regeneration from a fire is something needed (especially the cambium of a giant sequoia). Extremely hot fires are not necessary.

Alternative/Rating- Rationale (estimated from modeling)

Alt A/1-little work being done in giant sequoia groves.
Alt B/1- few acres treated. Moderate amount of site prep from fire and mechanical.
Alt C/1-few acres treated. Site prep limited to burning.
Alt D/1-few acres treated. No mechanical site prep and no artificial regeneration allowed.
Alt E/2-1784 acres treated. More opportunities for site prep.
Alt F/2-1599 acres treated. Maximizes flexibility to provide optimal site prep over the most acres.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 3, Vegetation, Mixed Conifer Including Giant Sequoia section; DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Vegetation section.]

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

Back to the Top

Hardwoods (Oak & Savanna)

Oak Woodland and Blue Oak Savanna were management areas in the Forest Plan. The 2001 SNFPA amended the Forest Plan to include them in the Hardwood Forest allocation. Oak trees are an important part of the ecosystems to be protected.

Savannas with dry-site oaks generally have direct light reaching the ground-level vegetation and are frequently considered transitional zones, occurring between forest and grassland.

Black oak may be managed differently. It contributes greatly to diversity and stability of wildlife, soils, water, and forest tree resources. It is a major concern in the Monument due to its value as wildlife habitat, how it responds to fire, and its relative abundance compared to other oak species. Oak savanna contains blue oak. Native Americans use the oaks; many prefer black oak acorns over those from the oak species in the white oak subgroup for flour. There is also valley oak, the largest known oak species, which is often located below 3,000 feet near subterranean water sources. This species is very sensitive to drought and long-term water table declines. Other oaks associated with the area are in the canyon areas and adapted to fire.

Scale

5. well protected
4. somewhat protected
3. minimally protected
2. rarely protected
1. not protected

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. somewhat protected
Alt B	4. somewhat protected
Alt C	3. minimally protected
Alt D	3. minimally protected
Alt E	4. somewhat protected
Alt F	4. somewhat protected

Rating rationale

Low-intensity ground fires burning grasses and small shrubs have long been used successfully in managing oaks. Grazing has also been used in managing oaks in widely dispersed savannahs or woodlands. Regeneration is often accomplished best in areas somewhat sheltered from disturbance, including heavy grazing. Seedlings are generally resistant to ground fires, but time must be allowed between prescribed burns for recovery and basal stem growth adequate to protect the seedlings from other light fires or grazing.

Oaks are not as resistant to intense fire as most conifers, because of their thinner bark. Because more intense fires can impact oaks, this could impact wildlife that use the oaks as dens. The severity and timing of fires are important factors, because oaks can be managed with both fire and mechanical treatments.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 3, Vegetation, Blue Oak-Interior Live Oak, Chaparral-Live Oak, and Montane Hardwood-Conifer sections; DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Vegetation section.]

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

Back to the Top

Caves

Caves are objects of interest that are developed and influenced through the actions of water and compounds carried in that water. Changes in soils, vegetation, and climate affect both chemical and physical processes in watersheds affecting caves. Cave ecosystems include the flora and fauna unique to each cave. Geological and biological features in caves can be impacted by recreational activities and wildfires.

Scale

5. Highly increases health
4. Moderately increases health
3. Slightly increases health
2. No change from current management
1. Decreasing health

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	2. No change from current management
Alt B	4. Moderately increases health
Alt C	3. Slightly increases health
Alt D	3. Slightly increases health
Alt E	3. Slightly increases health
Alt F	4. Moderately increases health

Rating rationale

The environmental effects to caves from activities that are proposed in the alternatives vary depending on the emphasis of the alternative. All of the alternatives include the potential for some form of vegetation management, prescribed burning, managed wildfire, and recreation. These activities could affect air quality, groundwater geochemistry, and sediment levels in caves. In addition, cave resources that include cave fauna and flora, paleontological, and archaeological resources and speleogens and speleothems could be affected.

Potential impacts from managed wildfire include widespread, high burn intensity areas that could burn in watersheds where caves are located. Large fires could alter the hydrological systems in the cave ecosystems, resulting in changes in chemistry, sediment levels and hydrology, which in turn could impact the flora and fauna that depend on the cave. Fire suppression could also damage cave ecosystems, mainly in the form of fire retardant flowing downstream into caves and interrupting their biochemistry.

Under each of the alternatives, a cave management plan would be developed to protect caves.

Alt A=2 as it is the current direction

Alt E=3 because the MSA has no direct language addressing caves

Alts B, F =4 because of additional protection of the Windy Gulch Geological Area, which puts more emphasis on managing caves in that area.

Alt C=3 because of high risk from fire that could decrease health, but limited access for recreation would somewhat increase health.

Alt D=3 because of the risk from severe fire

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Geological Resources section.]

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

Back to the Top

Hydrologic systems

Protection of the connectivity and function of hydrologic systems is dependent upon impacts to the flora, fauna, and soils of ecosystems. Roads, trails, and other compacted sites focus rainfall and cause some of the more noticeable damage to hydrologic systems through erosion and gullying. Protecting meadow and stream-side vegetation and reducing the number of stream and meadow crossings helps reduce impacts.

Scale

5. high
4. moderately high
3. moderate
2. low
1. minimal

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. moderately high
Alt B	5. high
Alt C	4. moderately high
Alt D	2. low
Alt E	3. moderate
Alt F	5. high

Rating rationale

Alternative A would provide less protection for hydrologic resources than Alternatives B & F, and more protection than Alternatives C, E, and D. Alternative A adopts standards and guidelines from the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2001 SNFPA) and would implement riparian conservation objectives (RCOs). Alternative A would not include refined standards and guidelines which are site-specific to conditions in the Monument, specifically detailed streamside management zone (SMZ) direction, ranges in natural variability for riparian conditions, water quality, or a meadow restoration strategy.

Alternative Bis similar to Alternative A relative to the 2001 SNFPA. Alternative B would follow RCOs and standards and guidelines in the 2004 SNFPA. The 2004 SNFPA RCOs are less redundant and provide greater consistency with existing direction and law. This alternative provides more refined standards and guidelines consistent with SMZ direction, site specific conditions, and ranges in natural variability for riparian conditions, water quality, and a meadow restoration strategy.

Alternative C would provide less protection for hydrologic resources than Alternative A and more protection than Alternatives E and D. The elimination of critical aquatic refuges (CARs) and riparian conservation areas (RCAs) would reduce the effectiveness of RCOs to protect identified species. Remaining standards and guidelines could provide protection for sensitive riparian species and habitats if appropriate direction is provided at the project level. Removal of the CARs and RCAs could possibly lead to listing of specific species by other agencies to assure protection.

Alternative D would provide the least protection for hydrologic resources. This alternative would not allow for fuel reduction treatments in riparian and wetland areas where there is a greater possibility of conditions that are outside the natural range of variability for fire return intervals. Inability to control fire in watersheds could lead to increases in sediment, impacts to riparian-dependent species, detrimental impacts to water quality, inability to protect soil and water resources, an excess of large woody material, inability to maintain shade and water temperatures, and watersheds that exceed threshold of concern.

Alternative E would provide more protection to hydrologic resources than Alternative D and less than Alternatives A, B, C, and F. This alternative adopts the standards and guidelines in the 1988 Forest Plan and the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA). While these documents were scientifically valid in their time, they lack the value of monitoring and current knowledge associated with the 2001 SNFPA and subsequent monitoring in the last nineteen years.

Alternative F would provide the same protection for hydrologic resources as Alternative B. Alternative F would deviate from other alternatives based on diameter limits. Diameter limits would have no effect on the ability to manage vegetation in a manner consistent with RCOs and would not compromise water quality or riparian-dependent species. Land allocations for CARs and RCAs provide opportunities to develop prescriptions for the management of riparian-dependent species and to adjust diameter limits in these allocations specific to species needs if necessary.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Hydrological Resources and Groundwater sections.]

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

Back to the Top

Increase efforts to restore natural fire processes

There is an overwhelming need to restore natural fire across the Monument landscape. The current rate of re-introducing fire is too slow. A long-term goal is to protect high value resources in strategic locations so the majority of natural fires can be allowed to burn. Ratings are in terms of fuel loading.

Scale

Rated as over 10+ years, and focuses on reducing fuel loads and better prevention of "unwanted" fires.

5. Succeeds in reducing fuel loads to sustainable levels
4. greater decrease in fuel load
3. makes a dent in fuel load compared to present
2. makes no difference, same as present
1. increase fuel load

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. makes a dent in fuel load compared to present
Alt B	5. succeeds in reducing fuel loads to sustainable levels
Alt C	4. greater decrease in fuel load
Alt D	4. greater decrease in fuel load
Alt E	3. makes a dent in fuel load compared to present
Alt F	4. greater decrease in fuel load

Rating rationale

Alternatives A and E would only make a dent in treating current fuel loads. The current slow rate of re-introducing fire in the Monument would continue.

Alternatives B would have the most opportunity to reduce fuel loads to sustainable levels. This alternative provides a variety of tools to manage fuels with a preference for prescribed fire.

Alternatives C and D would decrease fuel loads. These alternatives provide multiple tools with a preference for prescribed fire and managed wildfire.

Alternative F would decrease fuel loads by taking advantage of a variety of tools.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels section.]

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

Back to the Top

Protect objects outside WUIs, Groves & At-risk habitat

This is about protecting objects of interest from the "unwanted" fire that: 1) destroys a unique or rare object, or 2) otherwise negatively affects objects for a long period of time (over 10 years). However, protecting the objects of interest is secondary to protecting humans in the WUI zones.

"At-risk habitat" includes areas identified as old forest, riparian, and meadows used by wildlife.

Protecting the objects of interest in the WUI zones means protecting human safety is the top priority. See the additional rationale in the "Protect objects outside of WUI zones, giant sequoia groves, and at-risk habitat" for more information.

Scale

Rated as over 10+ years

5. well protected
4. somewhat protected
3. minimally protected
2. rarely protected
1. not protected

Protecting unique/rare individuals from fire are likely to need more intensive protection measures than protecting portions of ecosystems-context matters a lot. For example, protecting all the giant sequoias in a portion of Converse Basin Grove from burning up would not be necessary, but it is critical to protect giant sequoia stump D-21 as oldest known tree for scientific needs.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. somewhat protected
Alt B	5. well protected
Alt C	4. somewhat protected
Alt D	3. minimally protected
Alt E	4. somewhat protected
Alt F	5. well protected

Rating rationale

Alternatives A, C, and E would somewhat protect objects of interest outside of WUI zones, giant sequoia groves, and at-risk habitat. Current management would continue in Alternatives A and E. Alternative C would have preferences for using prescribed fire and managed wildfire.

Alternative B and F would well protect objects outside of WUI zones, giant sequoia groves, and at-risk habitat through the use of prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and managed wildfire.

Alternative D would minimally protect objects outside of WUI zones, giant sequoia groves, and at-risk habitat. Alternative D would have a preference for using managed wildfire.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels section.]

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

Back to the Top

Protect objects in WUIs, Groves & At-risk habitat

Scale

5. well protected
4. somewhat protected
3. minimally protected
2. rarely protected
1. not protected

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. somewhat protected
Alt B	5. well protected
Alt C	4. somewhat protected
Alt D	3. minimally protected
Alt E	4. somewhat protected
Alt F	5. well protected

Rating rationale

Human safety is a top priority in all alternatives.

Alternatives A, C, and E would somewhat protect objects of interest in WUI zones, giant sequoia groves, and at-risk habitats. Current management would continue in Alternatives A and E. Alternative C would have preferences for prescribed fire and managed wildfire. Human safety is the top priority in all alternatives. Alternative C would have fewer acres of WUI defense zone.

Alternative B and F would well protect objects in WUI zones, giant sequoia groves, and at-risk habitats. These alternatives would use a variety of fuels management tools including mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, and managed wildfire.

Alternative D would minimally protect objects in WUI zones, giant sequoia groves, and at-risk habitats. Managed wildfire would be the preferred fuels management tool. Alternative D would have the fewest acres of WUI defense zone.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels section.]

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

Back to the Top

No "unwanted" fire

This is the wildfire that happens in the worst place in terms of heat, location, and high wind, and at the worst time when we have little to no resources to manage it. It threatens high value resources: structures, named trees, PACs, and/or SOHAs (nesting/denning habitat). It torches everything in its path, completely uncontrollable.

Scale

Rated as over 10+ years

5. greatly reduces the risk of unwanted fire
4. significantly reduces the risk of unwanted fire
3. slightly reduces the risk
2. risk stays the same
1. increases the risk

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	2. risk stays the same
Alt B	4. significantly reduces
Alt C	3. slightly reduces
Alt D	1. increases the risk
Alt E	2. risk stays the same
Alt F	4. significantly reduces

Rating rationale

Alternatives A and E would keep the risk of unwanted fire the same. Current management practices would continue.

Alternative B and F would significantly reduce the risk of unwanted fire. These alternatives would use a variety of available fuels management tools with the least restrictions.

Alternative C would slightly reduce the risk of unwanted fire. The fuels management tools preferred in Alternative C would be prescribed fire and managed wildfire.

Alternative D would increase the risk of unwanted fire, because very few fuel treatments are planned. This alternative would have a preference for managed wildfire.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels section.]

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

Back to the Top

Minimize impacts of Air Quality on people

Effects on people due to air quality are based on measurements of particulate matter. The particulate matter (PM) that is evaluated for air quality is from emissions (PM2.5 and PM10) from a variety of sources in the San Joaquin Valley airshed. In the Monument, the amount of particulate matter is tied to the amount of prescribed fire and the type of fuel burned.

Scale

The scale gauges adverse impacts of the alternatives on Air Quality.

5. lowest impact
4. low impact
3. moderate impact
2. moderately high impact
1. high impact

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. moderate impact
Alt B	4. low impact
Alt C	2. moderately high impact
Alt D	1. high impact
Alt E	4. low impact
Alt F	4. low impact

Rating rationale

Alt A - Moderate wildfire emissions, with the priority of fuel reduction tools allowing for some control of emissions impacts on air quality.

Alt B - Low wildfire emissions, with the priority of fuel reduction tools allowing for greater control of timing of emissions release and minimizing air quality impacts.

Alt C - Moderately high wildfire emissions, with less use of mechanical treatments and moderate prescribed fire emissions. Restoring the natural process of wildfire without managing stand structure results in short-term (3 decades) increase in emissions.

Alt D - High wildfire emissions, with much less use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. Reduces overall control of emissions while maximizing total emissions released through uncontrolled fires.

Alt E - Low wildfire emissions, with greater use of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. Allows maximum control of emissions while minimizing total emissions from fire.

Alt F-Low wildfire emissions, with flexibility of management tools allowing for greater control of timing of emissions release and minimizing air quality impacts.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Air Quality section.]

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

Back to the Top

Effect on aesthetics (Scenery)

Features for this sub-criterion include the number of large trees visible, gaps and openings between trees to provide varied viewing depths, and the appearance of mortality in the form of red-needled, dead, or burnt trees.

Research shows people consistently prefer scenery with:
    a) Large trees,
    b) Forests with more open structure that people can see through,
    c) Variety in forest and landscape composition, and
    d) Views to distinctive ridgelines, landmarks, and landscape features.

People consistently consider the following as ugly (according to research):
     a) Downed wood from management activities,
     b) Extensive areas of dead or dying trees or other vegetation,
     c) Monotonous or homogeneous landscapes,
     d) Dead wood and scorched trunks, and
     e) Overgrown forests with dense understories.

Educating the public on the need for fire for healthy forests can change the public perception of the short-term negative effects of light and moderate burns.

Scenery can be improved by increasing diversity in forest composition, retaining large trees, opening vistas, and increasing visual penetration. Detriments (or risks) to scenery include overstocked forests with little visual penetration; severe fire effects, pestilence, or environmental conditions that destroy large trees or cause large scale die-off of vegetation; and perpetuating monotonous landscapes.

Scale

Improve scenery by increasing diversity in forest composition, retention of large trees, opening vistas, and increasing visual penetration. Risks or detriments to scenery include overstocked forests with little visual penetration, severe fire, pestilence, or environmental conditions that destroys large trees, or cause large scale die off of vegetation, and perpetuating monotonous landscapes.

5. positive affect on aesthetics
4. slight positive affect on aesthetics
3. no change to aesthetics
2. slight negative affects on aesthetics
1. negative affect on aesthetics

Ratings Summary

All of the alternatives address aesthetics. Ratings are for the short term (0-10 years), as all should positively affect aesthetics in the long term.

The focus would be on maintaining and improving viewsheds, including burned areas. All of the alternatives include educating the public on the need for fire and its long-term positive effects.

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. no change to aesthetics
Alt B	4. slight positive affect on aesthetics
Alt C	2. slight negative affects on aesthetics
Alt D	1. 1. negative affect on aesthetics
Alt E	3. no change to aesthetics
Alt F	4. slight positive affect on aesthetics

Rating rationale

Alternatives A and E would produce no change to aesthetics. Current management practices would continue.

Alternatives, B and F would slightly positively affect aesthetics. These alternatives would allow mechanical treatment, prescribed fire, and managed wildfire.

Alternative C would slightly negatively affect aesthetics. This alternative would have a preference for prescribed fire and managed wildfire.

Alternative D could negatively affect aesthetics. This alternative would have a preference for managed wildfire.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Human Uses, Scenery section.]

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

Back to the Top

Protect Human Safety outside WUI

Provide for human safety is the first priority in managing fire. It is likely that people will be protected in urban wildland intermix (WUI) zones. It is difficult to attain full protection outside of WUI zones due to a lack of access, dispersion of people in relation to fire, terrain, and fuels. Ratings are for the long term (10-plus years). q

Scale

Same metric as Protect Human Safety in WUI.

5. well protected
4. somewhat protected
3. minimally protected
2. rarely protected
1. not protected

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. somewhat protected
Alt B	5. well protected
Alt C	4. somewhat protected
Alt D	4. somewhat protected
Alt E	4. somewhat protected
Alt F	5. well protected

Rating rationale

Alternatives A, C, D, and E would somewhat protect human safety outside of WUI zones. Alternatives A and E would continue current management practices, and Alternatives C and D would have preferences for prescribed fire and managed wildfire.

Alternatives B and F would well protect human safety outside of WUI zones. These alternatives would allow a variety of fuels management tools in treating areas outside the WUI zones.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels section.]

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

Back to the Top

Protecting Human Safety in WUI

Providing for human safety is the first priority in managing fire. It is likely that people will be protected in urban wildland intermix (WUI) zones. The rating is over the long term (10-plus years).

Scale

Same metric as Protect Human Safety outside WUI.

5. well protected
4. somewhat protected
3. minimally protected
2. rarely protected
1. not protected

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	5. well protected
Alt B	5. well protected
Alt C	5. well protected
Alt D	5. well protected
Alt E	5. well protected
Alt F	5. well protected

Rating rationale

Although providing for human safety is the overriding priority, the reduction of fuels in WUI zones is the first priority for all alternatives, thus they rated the same (5).

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels section.]

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

Back to the Top

Enjoy the objects of interest

Although the Clinton proclamation (Clinton 2000) requires that the Forest Service protect the objects of interest, people have a strong desire to enjoy these objects. People need to have opportunities to enjoy the objects, whether on-site or virtually. Part of that enjoyment means knowing about the objects, where they are, their history, and their characteristics.

Scale

Same metric as Protect Human Safety outside WUI.

5. promotes enjoyment of many objects, including different kinds of objects on-site.
4. promotes enjoyment of some objects and/or fewer kinds of objects on-site.
3. promotes enjoyment of a few objects on-site.
2. limits opportunities for enjoyment on-site.
1. excludes people from enjoying the objects on-site.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. few objects on-site
Alt B	5. many objects, including different kinds of objects on-site.
Alt C	4. some objects and/or fewer kinds of objects on-site
Alt D	2. limits opportunities for enjoyment on-site
Alt E	4. some objects and/or fewer kinds of objects on-site
Alt F	5. many objects, including different kinds of objects on-site.

Rating rationale

All of the alternatives have the ability to provide for some enjoyment off-site, through methods such as interpretive programs and virtual tours on the internet. The ability of visitors to enjoy the objects of interest on-site varies by alternative, as the type of access, facility development, and activities allowed differ. No one kind of access to the objects of interest or one kind of development to facilitate their enjoyment will satisfy all users, individuals will be better served or lesser served by whichever alternative caters to their particular interests.

Alternatives B and F would have the greatest ability to provide for diverse types of access, facilities, and activities so that visitors can enjoy the objects of interest.

Alternatives A and E would be somewhat more limited in what can occur where, according to Forest Plan management emphasis area direction.

Alternative C would allow for the development of new facilities to enhance enjoyment of the objects, but, for example, if people want to mountain bike on a trail to view the objects or camp under a giant sequoia outside of a developed campground, their ability to do this might be restricted.

Alternative D would allow more road access than Alternative C, but visitors would find different restrictions (for example, a mountain bike might no longer be able to be used on a particular trail if it is not designated), or they might find that their favorite campground in a giant sequoia grove is no longer available.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Human Use, Recreation, Direct and Indirect Effects, Promotes Diversity of Users section.]

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

Back to the Top

Promotes diversity of users

The diversity of recreationists will continue to increase, as the American population becomes more diverse and international visitation increases. The greatest growth is projected to be in Hispanic and Asian populations, and their use is projected to increase dramatically in the next 25 years. Interpretative programs designed to reach these nontraditional users need to communicate important resource issues and solicit commitments to conservation. Recreation facilities and services need to be more relevant for the state's rapidly changing population segments, including the elderly, youth, single parent families, ethnic groups, new immigrants, and persons with disabilities. Recreation demand indicates a need for more group camping and picnicking opportunities, although there are still people seeking solitude.

Recreation is a prime lure for attracting visitors from overseas, and it is a growing factor in travel and residency patterns. Multinational forest users have different expectations for their recreation experiences than traditional forest users. Multinational visitors also present a challenge in effective communications. The Monument already sees a substantial number of international visitors, and they are expected to increase in the future.

Scale

5. Addresses the needs of all users.
4. Addresses the needs of many users.
3. Addresses the needs of some users.
2. Addresses the needs of only a few kinds of users.
1. Does not address the needs of users.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. Addresses the needs of many users
Alt B	5. Addresses the needs of all users
Alt C	3. Addresses the needs of some users
Alt D	2. Addresses the needs of only a few kinds of users
Alt E	4. Addresses the needs of many users
Alt F	5. Addresses the needs of all users

Rating rationale

Many recent immigrants have limited outdoor recreation experience on public lands. New methods of interpretation and efforts to outreach to underrepresented groups need to be developed with careful attention to their special needs. In many cases, developing products and services to reach out into the communities where underrepresented groups live, in order to raise their awareness of opportunities available or to bring the resource to them, may be needed. In other cases, for those who do visit, services need to be developed that meet their needs. All of the alternatives have the ability to provide needed information.

Older adults and baby boomers want more amenities and improved access, while younger adults want more immediate and lively information and access, drawn by opportunities for excitement, such as extreme sports and adventure recreation. People expect instantaneous information, thanks to the internet, so that they can customize their recreation experiences, as well as have virtual experiences. All of the alternatives have the ability to accommodate the need for information and to provide virtual experiences. Not all older people will increase their recreation participation; health concerns and mobility problems will affect their ability and desire to participate.

Alternative D, with its prohibition on new road development, would have the least ability to accommodate future recreation development to serve people with limited mobility, including many persons with disabilities. In addition, roads not needed to provide access for popular dispersed recreation areas, existing recreation development, or forest management could be decommissioned under Alternative D.

Alternative C could also affect people with limited mobility, but in a different way. In Alternative C, if roads maintained for high clearance vehicles are not needed for forest management or are not needed to serve existing or proposed recreation development, they could be decommissioned, thereby affecting access to some areas. All alternatives provide for some decommissioned roads to be converted to trails, providing for a different type of access to some areas. Because the potential for decommissioning roads would be greatest in Alternative C (and somewhat less in Alternative D), the potential for conversion to trails is also greatest in Alternative C (and somewhat less in Alternative D).

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Back to the Top

Promotes diversity of uses

The recreation component of the plan needs to provide for a diversity of uses (snowmobiling, hunting, bird watching etc.). As public land, flexibility is needed to respond to new and changing uses (e.g., geocaching) and opportunities for building a stewardship ethic. Volunteerism is a form of recreation for some people. Recreation site restoration, trail restoration, trail maintenance, and site maintenance are all examples of activities pursued by the citizen steward.

Scale

5. provides for a wide variety of uses.
4. provides for a moderate variety of uses.
3. provides for a narrower range of uses.
2. accommodates only a few kinds of uses.
1. does not provide for a variety of uses.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. moderate variety of uses
Alt B	5. wide variety of uses
Alt C	3. narrower range of uses
Alt D	3. narrower range of uses
Alt E	4. moderate variety of uses
Alt F	5. wide variety of uses

Rating rationale

The alternatives range in the diversity of recreation opportunities allowed. On one end of the scale (Alternatives B and F) is a wide variety of uses to accommodate individuals' differing recreation preferences, with flexibility to respond to future recreation demand and new activities.

On the other end of the scale (Alternatives C and D) is a more limited choice of uses, with new development only allowed in certain areas or with limitations on the type of development, and more limited ability to respond to changing recreation demand and activities.

Which recreation activities may occur in which locations are not specified for Alternatives B, C, D, and F, in order to provide the greatest flexibility to accommodate new and changing activities as they emerge in the future. However, Alternatives C and D would have some limitations on the kinds of activities that may be allowed.

Alternative C emphasizes developed recreation opportunities, but only in certain locations (recreation opportunity areas).

Alternative D would limit the development of new recreation facilities; no new roads would be allowed, so that new picnic areas or campgrounds would be walk-in only.

Which activities are emphasized in Alternatives A and E are listed in Forest Plan management emphasis area direction, which is somewhat more limited than what would be allowed in Alternatives B and F.

Parking and toilets would be provided, as appropriate, in all alternatives.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Human Use, Recreation, Direct and Indirect Effects, Promotes Diversity of Uses section.]

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

Back to the Top

Provides access

Access is needed for people to enjoy the Monument. People cannot play if they cannot get to their destination. The sheer existence of roads and trails is not enough for people to enjoy the Monument, as permission to use the access routes is necessary. Roads need to be designated for motorized vehicle use (including over snow vehicles), and roads and trails need to be designated for non-motorized mechanized vehicle use (mountain bikes). For some people, the use of these access routes is their primary form of recreation (e.g., sightseeing, biking, hiking, horseback riding, OHV use), with other facilities only being ancillary to their enjoyment (e.g., being able to camp after a day on the trail). For other people, the access only provides a means to get from one destination to another.

Scale

5. I can access the places I want the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike).
4. I can access most places I want, but there may be limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike).
3. I can access some places I want, but there are limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike).
2. I can access only a few places I want, and there are limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike).
1. I can't get to very many places unless I hike.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. I can access most places I want, but there may be limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike)
Alt B	4. I can access most places I want, but there may be limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike)
Alt C	2. I can access only a few places I want, and there are limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike)
Alt D	3. I can access some places I want, but there are limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike)
Alt E	4. I can access most places I want, but there may be limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike)
Alt F	4. I can access most places I want, but there may be limitations on the way I want (drive and/or ride and/or hike)

Rating rationale

KINDS OF USE: The alternatives vary in their treatment of roads and what kind of uses would be allowed. Alternatives C and D would be the most restrictive, and visitors would find that they may not be able to use all of the roads they want with the type of vehicle they desire. Off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and over-snow vehicles (OSVs) would be allowed on designated roads in Alternatives A, B, E, and F. In Alternatives C and D, only street-licensed motorized vehicles would be allowed.

Mountain bikes (non-motorized mechanized vehicles) would be allowed on designated roads (and trails) in Alternatives A, B, E, and F. Bicycles, including mountain bikes, would be allowed on designated roads only (no trails) in Alternative C. In Alternative D, possibly not all roads (and trails) would be designated for mountain bikes.

In Alternative C, OSVs would only be allowed to access private property, for administrative use, or for emergencies. In Alternative D, OSVs would be allowed on paved roads only. OHV loop opportunities may be provided on roads in Alternatives A, B, E, and F. No new roads would be constructed in Alternative D, but some new parking facilities may be developed to serve any new walk-in campgrounds and walk-in picnic areas.

DECOMISSIONING OF ROADS: Some roads would be decommissioned, particularly in Alternative C, but also in Alternative D, although probably to a lesser extent. Because dispersed camping along a roadside or at the end of a road would be eliminated in Alternative C, lower level maintenance roads (objective maintenance levels 1 and 2) could be decommissioned, resulting in decreased access for hunters. About 633 miles of road in the Monument are classified as Maintenance Levels 1 and 2 (about 68% of the Monument road system), and this road mileage represents the extreme of what could be decommissioned in Alternative C. In reality, some of these roads would be needed for management activities or to access the objects of interest, and they would not be decommissioned. Some of these roads might be upgraded to accommodate the development of new recreation facilities or to provide access to the objects of interest.

In Alternative D, some roads would also be decommissioned, but the mileage is likely to be less than in Alternative C, because Alternative D would continue dispersed camping (roadside, end of the road) opportunities.

In addition, some of the roads would be needed to provide access to the objects of interest or for management activities, but those road needs would be more limited than in any of the other alternatives, because of the reliance on fire as the primary management tool. The Monument transportation plan establishes criteria for when roads may be decommissioned; decommissioned roads might be converted to trails in any of the alternatives.

TRAILS: Trails for specific uses (biking, hiking, stock) could be provided in Alternatives A, B, D, E, and F. Bicycles, including mountain bikes, would not be allowed on trails (designated roads only) in Alternative C. In Alternative D, all trails (and roads) might not be designated for mountain bikes.

Loop trails could be provided in all alternatives to a certain extent, but not for biking in Alternative C, and not all trails in Alternative D may be designated for bikes, which could limit loop trail opportunities. Mountain bikes (non-motorized mechanized vehicles) would be allowed on designated trails (and roads) in Alternatives A, B, E, and F. Trail access in Alternative C would be provided through developed trailheads, rather than some of the undeveloped trailheads that currently exist. However, since all of the undeveloped trailheads are unlikely to be developed, fewer trailheads may be available in Alternative C.

Some decommissioned roads may be converted to trails in all of the alternatives. Because the potential for decommissioning roads is greatest in Alternative C (and somewhat less in Alternative D), the potential for conversion to trails is also greatest in Alternative C (and somewhat less in Alternative D).

All alternatives would allow the development of trails to provide access to the objects of interest. No new trail development would occur in the future until environmental analysis is completed for a site-specific project.

ACCESS INFORMATION: Access includes not only roads and trails, but also good use of signs, maps, and other types of visitor information to enable people to reach, understand, and appreciate the Monument. All alternatives have the ability to address the needs for information, although the ways of providing that information may differ, such as whether or not signs are provided on-site. In Alternative D, which would allow less new development and emphasizes natural processes, fewer signs may be provided on-site to lessen the visual impact.

MAINTENANCE: Although access may be allowed on designated routes, how well those routes are maintained would affect users' ability to use and enjoy the routes. Partnerships and funding sources for road and trail maintenance are important for all alternatives.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Human Use, Recreation, Direct and Indirect Effects, Provides Access section.]

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

Back to the Top

Connects people to others and across generations

Recreation in this plan should promote the connection among people and across generations. More group facilities for both camping and day use are important and will become even more important in the future, as larger "families" want to recreate together. In the past, a family was viewed as a mother, father, and their children; today a family may be multi-generational and may or may not be related by blood or marriage. Research has shown that people often want to recreate in groups, and the Sequoia National Forest is a very family-oriented forest.

All alternatives include education programs and interpretation, specifying that the forest interpretive plan be followed. The Interpretive Plan for the Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National Monument, published in 2008, established a strategy for the forest's interpretive program, featuring the interpretation of the objects of interest, both natural and cultural. Interpretive services may be provided on-site or virtually. The specific interpretive products, services, and delivery methods are expected to evolve over time, in response to evolving technologies, visitor needs and demands, and available resources. Partnerships are important in the provision of interpretation, not only because of the extra resources they provide, but also because they help to enrich the information provided and help to develop a sense of stewardship in both the partners and recipients of interpretive services.

Keeping history alive for future generations is important; historic perspectives help guide us into the future. The interpretation of history promotes a connection among people and across the generations who came before us. Restoration of historic sites, such as cabins, would be promoted, along with interpretation of their histories, either on-site or virtually. Sometimes off-site interpretation is most appropriate, in order to protect the resources from damage by use or abuse.

Scale

5. connects people to people by providing a lot of opportunities for groups, considering both the diversity of uses and users
4. provides some group opportunities.
3. provides some group opportunities, but diversity of users and/or uses is more limited.
2. provides few group opportunities.
1. doesn't adequately consider group opportunities.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	3. some group opportunities, but diversity of users and/or uses is more limited
Alt B	5. lot of opportunities for groups, considering both the diversity of uses and users
Alt C	5. lot of opportunities for groups, considering both the diversity of uses and users
Alt D	2. few group opportunities
Alt E	3. some group opportunities, but diversity of users and/or uses is more limited
Alt F	5. lot of opportunities for groups, considering both the diversity of uses and users

Rating rationale

This situation is especially true of lakes and rivers within a one-hour drive of urban centers. Interpretive programs that increase agency presence, using peers to deliver the messages, and provide audience-valued resource information, incorporating low impact use messages, could be effective ways to increase outreach to nontraditional users, while mitigating resource impacts; all of the alternatives can accommodate this need.

Interpretive services likely to be provided would not change among alternatives, but the location and method of delivery may vary. All alternatives would have the same potential for virtual interpretive opportunities.

Alternatives B, F, and particularly C would be likely to have a strong on-site component, through programs, guided tours, and displays at visitor centers, for example.

As less new development would be envisioned in the Monument in Alternative D, more virtual interpretive opportunities might be provided versus on-site; on-site interpretation would be focused at existing developed sites and through guided tours or programs which are not facility dependent.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Human Use, Recreation, Direct and Indirect Effects, Connects People to Others and Across Generations section.]

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

Back to the Top

Connects people to the land (places)

People have a strong connection to place. This connection may come from a person's experience. Use of particular areas may be multigenerational. For example, a person may have visited a place for years, perhaps with their parents or grandparents, and want to pass along that tradition of use to their children and grandchildren. A person may have seen a picture of a location or read about it and consequently formed a strong attachment to that place and care about it, even though they may never actually visit it. A connection to place may be shared by cultures. For example, Native Americans often have strong attachment to particular areas for practical purposes, such as gathering basketry materials, or for spiritual reasons.

Whatever the reason, places have particular meaning for individuals. And each person can have that attachment for a different place or multiple locations. What places those are may vary with the activity, such as a favorite camping spot, trail, or vista point. No one place can satisfy that connection for all people. The place and the reason for the attachment are as individual as the person.

Scale

5. I can visit all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to.
4. I can visit all the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there.
3. I can visit some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there.
2. I can visit a few of the places that are important/special to me and/or do a few of the activities I want there.
1. I can't visit the places that are important/special to me and/or do any of the activities I want there!

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. all the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there
Alt B	5. all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to
Alt C	3. some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there
Alt D	3.some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there
Alt E	4. all the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there
Alt F	5. all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to

Rating rationale

People have a strong connection to place. The connection to place is strengthened when a person knows that he or she can visit that special place, either in person or vicariously. All of the alternatives have the ability to provide for vicarious visits, through methods such as virtual tours on the internet, for example. The alternatives provide for a range of recreation opportunities in the Monument, from more diverse uses (Alternatives B and F) to more limited choices (Alternatives C and D), and from a wide variety of access possibilities (Alternatives B and F) to more limited forms of access (Alternatives C and D). Because a person's connection to place is so personal, individuals may find that no matter what alternative is selected that they still cannot access their special places in the way that they want or use them for the activities they want. Or they may find that they can use all of their favorite places the way that they want to use them, when they want to use them. However, the reality for most people would probably be somewhere in the middle, that some limitation may be placed on when (season, time of day, day of the week) they can use their favorite places, how they can get there (mode of transport), what activities they can engage in once they are there, or what kinds of facilities exist. Alternatives B and F would have the most flexibility to accommodate the widest diversity of opportunities, with Alternatives C and D having the most restrictions, although in different ways.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Human Use, Recreation, Direct and Indirect Effects, Connects People to the Land (Places) section.]

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

Back to the Top

Connects people to the land (places)

People have a strong connection to place. This connection may come from a person's experience. Use of particular areas may be multi-generational. For example, a person may have visited a place for years, perhaps with their parents or grandparents, and want to pass along that tradition of use to their children and grandchildren. The connection may be vicarious. A person may have seen a picture of a location or read about it and consequently formed a strong attachment to that place and care about it, even though they may never actually visit it. A connection to place may be shared by cultures. For example, Native Americans often have strong attachment to particular areas for practical purposes, such as gathering basketry materials, or for spiritual reasons.

Scale

Providing outdoor opportunities to accommodate larger social groups presents forest managers with challenges, including impacts from human waste, littering, soil compaction and erosion, and vegetation disturbance. Larger groups can mean concentrated resource impacts, especially in riparian areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. Many of these users are urbanites, lower income groups, and nontraditional user groups, unfamiliar or unconcerned with the dangers and vulnerabilities of the natural environment they have come to enjoy. This situation is especially true of lakes and rivers within a one-hour drive of urban centers. Interpretive programs that increase agency presence, using peers to deliver the messages, and provide audience-valued resource information, incorporating low impact use messages, could be effective ways to increase outreach to nontraditional users, while mitigating resource impacts; all of the alternatives can accommodate this need.

5. I can visit all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to.
4. I can visit the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there.
3. I can visit some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there.
2. I can visit a few of the places that are important/special to me and/or do a few of the activities I want there.
1. I can't visit the places that are important/special to me and/or do any of the activities I want there.

The connection to place is strengthened when a person knows that he or she can visit that special place, either in person or vicariously. All of the alternatives have the ability to provide for vicarious visits, through methods such as virtual tours on the internet.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. I can visit the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there
Alt B	5. I can visit all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to
Alt C	3. I can visit some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there
Alt D	3. I can visit some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there
Alt E	4. I can visit the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there
Alt F	5. I can visit all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to

Rating rationale

The alternatives provide for a range of recreation opportunities in the Monument, from more diverse uses (Alternatives B and F) to more limited choices (Alternatives C and D), and from a wide variety of access possibilities (Alternatives B and F) to more limited forms of access (Alternatives C and D). Because a person's connection to place is so personal, individuals may find that no matter what alternative is selected they still cannot access their special places in the way they want or use them for the activities they want. Or they may find that they can use all of their favorite places the way that they want to use them, when they want to use them. The reality for most people would probably be somewhere in the middle, that some limitation may be placed on when (season, time of day, day of the week) they can use their favorite places, how they can get there (mode of transport), what activities they can engage in once they are there, or what kinds of facilities exist.

Alternatives B and F would have the most flexibility to accommodate the widest diversity of opportunities, with Alternatives C and D having the most restrictions, although in different ways.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Back to the Top

Supports gateway economic development

While socioeconomic differences exist among the three counties, differences also exist among the gateway communities adjacent to the Monument. While differences exist, there are also similarities. For example, the "educational, health and social services" category of employment is the largest employer for all gateway communities analyzed, ranging from a low of 19% in Squaw Valley to a high of 34% in Springville. It is probable this job sector will continue to grow the fastest and remain the largest employer among gateway communities. None of the proposed alternatives are expected to increase economic growth in this job sector.

In comparison, the "arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services" job sector may be most influenced by the proposed alternatives, based on human use and recreation facilities encouraged both within and outside the Monument. Among the gateway communities analyzed, this job sector currently ranges from a low of 5% in Springville to a high of 24% on the Tule River Indian Reservation. This job sector on the Tule River Indian Reservation is primarily attributable to the Eagle Mountain Casino and will likely be little influenced by the proposed alternatives. Again, most of the potential for economic growth in this sector will come from the expected increase in population. Variations among the alternatives may lead to a greater potential for economic growth in gateway communities.

Scale

4. high-level of improvement
3. medium-level of improvement
2. low-level of improvement
1. does not improve above current level

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	2. low-level of improvement
Alt B	3. medium-level of improvement
Alt C	3. medium-level of improvement
Alt D	3. medium-level of improvement
Alt E	2. low-level of improvement
Alt F	3. medium-level of improvement

Rating rationale

Although all of the alternatives would promote economic growth in the "arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services" job sector to some degree, Alternatives B, C, and F are particularly designed to promote tourism. With less development in the Monument, Alternative D would likely attract a different type of tourist than the other alternatives, and most tourist services would be located outside the Monument. Alternatives B, C, D, and F would all encourage gateway community development in the "arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services" job sector.

Concessionaires, private resorts, and other commercial development would continue to have opportunities in the Monument. Potential new development would be possible, particularly in Alternatives B, C, and F. No new development would occur until site-specific project environmental analysis is completed. New lodges, restaurants, and visitor centers are examples of the kinds of new development that could occur. In Alternative C, new developed facilities would be located near existing roads. In Alternative D, no new lodges, resorts, or organizational camps would be authorized or constructed in the Monument; such development would be encouraged outside the Monument. Alternatives B, C, D, and F would all encourage gateway community development.

Outfitter guides would continue to have opportunities in all alternatives, although limitations may be placed on where they can provide services and what kinds of activities they can offer. For example, mountain bike rentals or guided trips would be limited in Alternative C, due to the prohibition of mountain bikes on trails. Alternative D may have fewer trails designated for mountain bike use than would Alternatives A, B, E, and F, which could also result in fewer opportunities for mountain bike outfitter guides.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Human Use, Socioeconomics, Indirect Effects, Gateway Community Development section.]

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

Back to the Top

Provides for diverse economic opportunities

Potential changes in the Forest Service economic contribution across the alternatives are based on projected changes in visits to the national forest (arts, entertainment, and recreation; accommodation and food services), fiber production and grazing (agriculture), and Forest Service budget and employees (government).

While mining is an important natural resource sector for the three-county area, there is no authorized mineral extraction in the Monument nor will any of the alternatives allow mineral extraction in the Monument; none of the alternatives will change the Forest Service's contribution to the mining sector of the study area economy.

Scale

At this time, it is not possible to quantify changes to the number and type of recreation visits to the Monument caused by any particular alternative. So changes to the Forest Service contribution to the economy attributable to recreation are too speculative to be quantified. None of the alternatives will impel changes to the grazing program; the Forest Service contribution to the economy due to grazing will not change.

3. broad range of opportunity
2. moderate range of opportunity
1. narrow range of opportunity

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	2. moderate range of opportunity
Alt B	2. moderate range of opportunity
Alt C	1. narrow range of opportunity
Alt D	1. narrow range of opportunity
Alt E	2. moderate range of opportunity
Alt F	2. moderate range of opportunity

Rating rationale

The indirect effects resulting from the alternatives will be dwarfed by those changes caused by the expected state-wide population growth. This increase in population, unaided, will have greater potential for increasing economic growth within the area of influence than any result of the proposed alternatives. In summary, none of the action alternatives would change the Forest Service's relative contribution to the study area economy in a measurable way.

At this time, it is not possible to quantify changes to the number and type of recreation visits to the Monument caused by any particular alternative. So changes to the Forest Service contribution to the economy attributable to recreation are too speculative to be quantified. None of the alternatives would impel changes to the grazing program, so the Forest Service contribution to the economy due to grazing will not change.

Across the alternatives, potential fiber output from the Monument would range from a low of 84 Ccf (100 cubic feet) annually with Alternative C to a high of 6,863 Ccf annually under Alternative F. Alternatives C and D would be most likely to decrease the Forest's contribution to the economy because of the decrease in sawtimber. Because the total fiber production is not broken out by sawtimber, poles, fuelwood, and other products, the contribution to the economy cannot be further quantified.

None of the action alternatives include a quantified change in the Sequoia National Forest budget or manpower, so the Forest Service contribution to the local economy due to direct government activities like contracting, rent, or Forest Service salaries used in the economy would not change.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Human Use, Socioeconomics, Indirect Effects, Forest Service Economic Contribution section.]

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

Back to the Top

Protects communities from fire

The communities in and near the Monument need to be protected from destructive fires.

Scale

Metric: Size of WUI

5. lowest risk of community property loss or loss of life
4. low risk except for extreme fire
3. moderate risk
2. moderately high risk
1. high risk

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. low risk except for extreme fire
Alt B	5. lowest risk of community property loss or loss of life
Alt C	3. moderate risk
Alt D	3. moderate risk
Alt E	4. low risk except for extreme fire
Alt F	5. lowest risk of community property loss or loss of life

Rating rationale

Alternatives A and E would have a low risk except in extreme weather and fire behavior situations. WUI defense zones would cover 45,342 acres and threat zones 145,522 acres. The size of the WUI zones proposed in these alternatives would cover 58% of the Monument.

Alternatives C and D would have a moderate risk. WUI defense zones would cover 8,304 acres (3% of the Monument) in Alternative C and 4,603 acres (1% of the Monument) in Alternative D.

Alternative B and F would have the lowest risk of community property loss or loss of life. WUI defense zones would cover 45,342 acres and threat zones 145,522 acres. The WUI zones in these alternatives would cover 58% of the Monument. Alternatives B and F propose more acres for fuel reduction activities in areas of moderate and high fire susceptibility than the other alternatives.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

[DEIS Vol I, Chapter 4, Fire and Fuels section.]

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

Back to the Top

Supports connection of all to place

Scale

5. I can visit all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to.
4. I can visit the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there.
3. I can visit some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there.
2. I can visit a few of the places that are important/special to me and/or do a few of the activities I want there.
1. can't visit the places that are important/special to me and/or do any of the activities I want there.

Ratings Summary

Alternative	Rating based on Draft EIS
Alt A	4. all the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there
Alt B	5. all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to
Alt C	3. some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there
Alt D	3. some of the places that are important/special to me and/or do some of the activities I want there
Alt E	4. all the places that are important/special to me, but I can't do all the activities I want there
Alt F	5. all the places that are important/special to me and do the activities I want to

Rating rationale

Alternatives B and F would have the most flexibility to accommodate the widest diversity of opportunities, with Alternatives C and D having the most restrictions, although in different ways.

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Back to the Top

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

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%

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.

Back to the Top

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..

Ratings and Rationale

Subcriteria with Ratings & Rationale

Protect individual objects

Increase ecosystem health

Manage/allow fire

Increase enjoyment of the Monument

Foster socio-economics

Create a cost-effective plan

Geology (spires, domes, caves)

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

Protection of caves

Protection of spires and domes

Protection of hot springs and soda springs

Individually named Giant Sequoia

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Scale Explanation

Impact

Duration

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

Ratings for Sub-criteria

For further details on this sub-subcriterion, read the following section in the DEIS

For further details on this sub-subcriterion, read the following section in the DEIS

Alternative averages (see table above)

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

Alternative/Rating- Rationale (estimated from modeling)

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale

For further details, read the following section in the DEIS

Scale

Ratings Summary

Rating rationale