NEPA--Environmental Assessment

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis
Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not
developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action
did not suggest any entire new alternatives, but several suggestions were provided.
Some of these suggestions were outside the scope of the decision space for this project or already
decided by a higher-level decision. These included suggestions for such things as grazing fee
increases, comments regarding elk population management, and concerns with recreation
management. Because these kinds of issues are beyond the scope of the decision space for this
project, an alternative was not crafted to address them.
Many ideas were provided regarding what should be included as part of this analysis, such as
analyses of recreational impacts, watershed conditions, impacts to wildlife, monitoring plans, and
description of vegetative conditions. These kinds of items have been included in this document;
there was no need to craft an additional alternative to include them.
Other suggestions were already included in one or more of the alternatives considered in detail.
These included: suggestions to close grazing on the landscape or part of the landscape, with specific
areas to be closed often suggested (included in Alternative 1, No Action); and to leave vacant areas
vacant instead of closing them (included in Alternative 2).
Other suggestions were considered, but not included in any alternative for the reasons stated:
• Remove grazing from the Silverton Ski Area basin. The Silverton Ski Area FEIS included
acknowledgement that grazing was existing prior to the ski area permit, and will continue after
the issuance of the permit (USDI 2004).
• Prohibit grazing within a prescribed distance from the Colorado Trail and Continental Divide
Trail. This suggestion would be impractical to implement on the ground. While permittees are
encouraged to avoid the major recreation trails, it is not possible to manage sheep grazing to
such a level of precision. There are also cases where a trail follows the only logical route of
ingress or egress, which is due to the fact that many trails were originally livestock driveways
before they were used by recreationists.
• Consider management direction that is currently still in draft stages (e.g. draft Forest Plan and
draft Silverton Recreation Area Management Plan): while draft documents and guidance should
be considered, it cannot be adopted into this decision, as that would be considered predecisional.
We considered the possibility of moving domestic sheep bands from currently active allotments
where the perceived risk of contact with bighorn sheep is high to other currently vacant allotments
where the perceived risk of contact with bighorns is low. Below is a brief discussion of the possible
other allotments considered but eliminated, and the reasons for their elimination.
• Graysill and Flume allotments (FS, vacant allotments): these allotments have been vacant since
1989. They have been successfully used as a forage reserve as recently as 2002 with no adverse
impacts to vegetation and soils. There are few if any conflicts with recreation. There is a small
area of overlap with mapped summer range of the S71 West Needles bighorn sheep herd in the
extreme south end of the Flume Allotment. Due to difficult access, potential conflicts with a
summer home group, and generally steep slopes with potentially sensitive soil types, we
recommend these allotments be placed into forage reserve status. When active however, all of
the project design criteria and adaptive management practices for active allotments should be
applied to these allotments, when used. We anticipate these allotments may be used once per 15
47