NEPA--Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES
This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Silverton Landscape Grazing
Analysis. It includes a description of each alternative considered. This section also presents the
alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a
clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.
Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative
(e.g., allotments to be closed) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social
and economic effects of implementing each alternative (e.g., the effects on vegetative conditions).
Alternative 1 – No Action ___________________________
Under the No Action/No Livestock Grazing Alternative, no livestock grazing would be permitted on
any of the allotments in the landscape. “No action” is synonymous with “no livestock grazing” and
means that livestock grazing would not be authorized within the project area. Following current
direction, existing permits would be phased out after giving permittees notice as provided for in
Forest Service policy (FSH 2209.13, R2 ID, Chapter 10, section 16.1) which says that “…the
authorized officer shall provide one year’s written notice before the modification takes effect, except
in emergency situations.” According to direction given in FSH 2209.13, R2 ID, Chapter 90, section
94.1, “the ‘no livestock grazing’ alternative will always be fully developed and analyzed in detail”
and is therefore considered a fully viable alternative in this analysis. Improvements such as corrals
would eventually be removed as time and funding allow. This alternative provides an environmental
baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives.
Design Criteria for Alternatives 2 and 3 ______________
The Forest Service uses many measures to reduce or prevent negative impacts to the environment in
the planning and implementation of management activities. The application of these measures
begins at the planning and design phase of a project. The Forest Plan/RMP standards and guidelines
and the direction contained in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) and
the Range Management Handbook (FSH 2200) are the first protection measures to be applied to the
project. These sources are incorporated by reference and are not reiterated here. Other Project
Design Criteria are then developed, as the need is identified by the FS/BLM specialists and
authorized officer.
Some of the design criteria below have been used for years or are commonly used practices
throughout the western United States and have been found to be effective in reducing potential
impacts. Beside the commonly used practices, additional practices concerning the management of
contact between domestic sheep and goats and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep are included. Many
of these recommended practices were taken from Wild Sheep Working Group Initial Subcommittee,
Recommendations for Domestic Sheep and Goat Management in Wild Sheep Habitat (WAFWA,
2007).
28