Persuant to Sec. 3. of the 1971 WFHBA, Salazar CAN create wild horse and burro sanctuaries on ANY public land (see bold italisized text) = No Need for ROAM!
All wild free-roaming horses and burros are hereby declared to be under the jurisdiction of the Secretary for the purpose of management and protection in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The Secretary is authorized and directed to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses and burros as components of the public lands, and he may designate and maintain specific ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation, where the Secretary after consultation with the wildlife agency of the State wherein any such range is proposed and with the Advisory Board established in section 7 of this Act deems such action desirable. The Secretary shall manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands. He shall consider the recommendations of qualified scientists in the field of biology and ecology, some of whom shall be independent of both Federal and State agencies and may include members of the Advisory Board established in section 7 of this Act. All management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level and shall be carried out in consultation with the wildlife agency of the State wherein such lands are located in order to protect the natural ecological balance of all wildlife species which inhabit such lands, particularly endangered wildlife species. Any adjustments in forage allocations on any such lands shall take into consideration the needs of other wildlife species which inhabit such lands.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
dEFINITION: $ustained Yield
The phrase "sustained yield" refers to the BLM's
duty "to control depleting uses over time, so as to ensure a high level of valuable uses in the future." Id. (citing 43 U.S.C. 1702(h)).
duty "to control depleting uses over time, so as to ensure a high level of valuable uses in the future." Id. (citing 43 U.S.C. 1702(h)).
The Greatest Gift We Have Given Them
If you had to name one thing you would consider as Americas greatest gift to our Nations wild horse and burro herds, what would you say it to be? Its early in the day so I will give you all some time to think about this and will get back to it a little later on and then I will tell you what I think our greatest gift to them was.
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Big Freeze of 1886: What was Thought as the End of Public Ranching...
Too bad it was not,...but there is a lesson to be learned here; if you dont have enough land of your own, or the proper facilities to feed AND house your animals ---you shouildnt OWN THEM!
From Wyoming Tales and Trails
This page: Roundups, Chuckwagons, the Great Die-off, Moreton Frewen, C. D. Kirkland.
Big Horn Basin Black Hills Bone Wars Buffalo Cambria Casper Cattle Drives Centennial Cheyenne Chugwater Cody Custer Deadwood Stage Douglas Dubois Encampment Evanston Ft. Bridger Ft. Fetterman Ft. Laramie Ft. Russell Frontier Days Ghost Towns Gillette G. River F. V. Hayden Tom Horn Jackson Johnson County War Kemmerer Lander Laramie Lincoln Highway Lusk Meeteetse Medicine Bow N. Platte Valley Oil Camps Overland Stage Photos V Rawlins Rock Springs Rudefeha Mine Sheepherding Sheridan Sherman Shoshoni Superior Thermopolis USS Wyoming Wheatland Wild Bunch Yellowstone
Roundup Camp, Wyoming, 1880's
The flat brimmed hats some of the cowboys are wearing is the Stetson "Boss of the Plains" hat originated in 1865 and sold for $5.00. By 1900 it was sold by Sears Robuck and Company for $4.50 plus postage. Shaping of the brim and crown was done by the owner. As noted with regard the discussion of Cheyenne, the chuckwagon was invented by Charles Goodnight. Brands included Studebaker, South Bend, Owensburrow, McCormick-Deering and Weber. McCormick-Deering in 1907 changed its name to International Harvester and continued to supply wagons until the 1940's. After 1936 all of the International wagons were manufactured by Keller Manufacturing Company which discontinued production in 1943 and converted to the manufacture of furniture. Studebaker also built a heavier wagon known as the "roundup wagon" more suited to roundups but not as well suited to trail drives as the lighter chuckwagon. On large drives an additional wagon known as a "hoodlum wagon" was used for carrying bed rolls and personal gear.
In the early 1880's a discussed with regard to the Swan Land and Cattle Company , a cattle boom swept the Great Plains, attracting many eastern and British investors. Although the editor of the Sheridan City Directory, as noted on the Sheridan Page, may have believed that "in winter the friendly 'chinook' wind mitigates the cold, killing winters of the Dakotas," as illustrated by C. M. Russell's famous sketch pictured lower on the page, chinooks are somewhat unreliable.
The winter of 1886-1887 was devasting to Wyoming's cattle industry. The giant British-owned Swan Land & Cattle Company, Limited, headquartered in Chugwater and Cheyenne, lost 50% of its calves and 15 to 20% of its entire stock. On one wintry day across the street from the Cheyenne Club, ranchmen gathered in Luke Murrin's saloon to lament their losses. Luke, realizing that herds were often sold by "book count" rather than actual census, offered the assurance, "Cheer up boys, whatever happens, the books won't freeze." It did little to assuage their fears. Nor was their confidence helped when on January 1, 1887, when the giant Dolores Land and Cattle Company, owned by Gilbert A. Searight and his family made an assignment for the benefit of creditors. The previous year Searight sold the Goose Egg Ranch on Poison Spider Creek to J. M. Cary and Brother losing an estimated $200,000.00 in the transaction. According to the Fort Worth Daily Gazette, January 3, 1897, The Dolores Land and Cattle Company was regarded as one of the wealthiest cattle organizations. It was capitalized at $2,000,000. Searight had been used by William Makepeace Thayer in his 1887 "Marvels of the New West as an example of the fortunes to be made in the cattle business.
On May 14, 1887, cattle interests in Wyoming were further shaken when Alexander Swan and his brother Thomas Swan declared their insolvency and entered into a general assignment of assets for the benefit of creditors. Less than a month before, the Swan Brothers' accountant had declared to the First National Bank of Cheyenne that the two were worth more than $800,000.00 above liabillities. Shortly thereafter, creditors, bankers, and lawyers began gathering around the Cheyenne Land & Live-Stock Company which had extensive land and irrigation holdings along Horse Creek. And like prairie wolves the creditors were soon fighting amongst themselves as they picked at the carcass. Other large companies such as the Niobrara Land and Cattle Company which had interests from Texas to Montana failed. In the instance of the Swan Land and Cattle Co. fraud, as discussed on the Chugwater page, may also have contributed to large losses.
On November 13, 1886, it started to snow and continued for a month. In mid-December, however, there was a thaw, turning the snow to slush. In late December the temperature turned to the minus 30's turning the slush to a solid sheet of ice. January of 1887, was the coldest in memory and included one 72-hour blizzard. Teddy Blue Abbott, who received his nickname as a result of an incident with a soiled dove in Miles City, Mt., noted:
"It was all so slow, plunging after them through the deep snow . . . .The horses' feet were cut and bleeding from the heavy crust, the cattle had the hair and hide wore off their legs to the knees and the hocks. It was surely hell to see big four-year-old steers just able to stagger along. It was the same all over Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado, western Nebraska, and western Kansas."
"A Blizzard on the Range," F. W. Schultz, 1907
Theodore Roosevelt who owned a ranch in Dakota Territory described the scene when Spring thaw came:
It would be impossible to imagine any sight more dreary and melancholy than that offered by the ranges when the snow went off in March. The land was a mere barren waste; not a green thing could be seen; the dead grass eaten off till the country looked as if it had been shaved with a razor. Occasionally among the desolate hills a rider would come across a band of gaunt, hollow-flanked cattle feebly cropping the sparse, dry pasturage, too listless to move out of the way; and the blackened carcasses lay in the sheltered spots, some stretched out, others in as natural a position as if the animals had merely lain down to rest. It was small wonder that cheerful stockmen were rare objects that spring.
"Drifting Before the Storm," Frederic Remington, Collier's Magazine, July, 1904
Andy Adams in his 1907 novel Reed Anthony, a Cowman described the impact of the great storm on cattle:
The removed cattle, strangers in a strange land, drifted to the fences and were cut to the quick by the biting blasts. Early in January the worst blizzard in the history of the plains swept down from the north, and the poor wandering cattle were driven to the divides and frozen to death against the line fences. * * * * [W]e were powerless to relieve the drifting cattle. The morning after the great storm, with others, I rode to a south string of fence on a divide, and found thousands of our cattle huddled against it, many frozen to death, partially through and hanging on the wire. We cut the fences in order to allow them to drift on to shelter, but the legs of many of them were so badly frozen that, when they moved, the skin cracked open and their hoofs dropped off. Hundreds of young steers were wandering aimlessly around on hoofless stumps, while their tails cracked and broke like icicles. In angles and nooks of the fence, hundreds had perished against the wire, their bodies forming a scaling ladder, permitting late arrivals to walk over the dead and dying as they passed on with the fury of the storm. I had been a soldier and seen sad sights, but nothing to compare to this; the moaning of the cattle freezing to death would have melted a heart of adamant. All we could do was to cut the fences and let them drift, for to halt was to die; and when the storm abated one could have walked for miles on the bodies of dead animals.
Drift fences were constructed to preclude cattle from wandering too far. Thus, a drift fence would make a round-up easier. The most famous of the drift fences was that constructed by the XIT from the New Mexico border all the was across the Panhandle of Texas. In Wyoming, the Two-Bar constructed one in Goshen Hole. But in the winter, three or four days before a blizzard would come out of the north, the cattle would start drifting to the south. This would necessitate cowboys having to ride the line to prevent the fence from being broken. James Mooney, who became a cowboy at age 13 and trail boss by age 19, explained:
One of the purpose for which the drift fence was builded, was to hold the herds from drifting into territory beyond the fence. West of that fence was a rough brush section and when cattle got into it was a pert job to get the critters out. The drift fence saved work and riders. We could always tell, two and three days ahead, when a norther was going to hit, because the cattle began to drift for shelter and by the time the storm hit the herd would be drifting a-plenty. Before the days of the drift fence, holding the herd before a coming norther was like trying to stop a preacher from accepting donations.
Along that drift fence, during that dry spell I saw carcasses laying one against the other. The critters drifted to the fence and there died.
The drift fence were put up in many sections of the range country. The ranchmen ranging cattle in a section would jointly pay the cost and the expense of keeping the fence up. For each 25 miles of fence a rider was used who did nothing but ride the fence line and fix breaks. He carried a hammer, pliers, and staples in the saddle bag as his tools for the job. Our outfit always put on extra fence riders when a norther was headed our way. As soon as the cattle started drifting the extra riders would go on and stay untill the storm was over. With the catching of them two bunches of rustlers, we had this satisfaction that they did not cut any more fences, unless they did it in hell.
"Fall of the Cowboy," Frederic Remington, oil on canvas, 1895.
Remington's The Fall of the Cowboy was used as the last of five illustrations for Owen Wister's "The Evolution of the Cow-Puncher", Harper's New Monthly Magazine, September 1895. In the article, Wister laments the passimg of the American cowboy:
They galloped by the side of the older hands, and caught something of the swing and tradition of the first years. They developed heartiness and honesty in virtue and in vice alike. Their evil deeds were not of the sneaking kind, but had always the saving grace of courage. Their code had no place for the man who steals a pocket-book or stabs in the back. And what has become of them? Where is this latest outcropping of the Saxon gone? Except where he lingers in the mountains of New Mexico he has been dispersed, as the elk, as the buffalo, as all wild animals must inevitably be dispersed. Three things swept him away -- the exhausting of the virgin pastures, the coming of the wire fence, and Mr. Armour of Chicago, who set the price of beef to suit himself. But all this may be summed up in the word Progress.
The effect of the die-off was such that many eastern investors now withdrew and foreign ranchers simply left. Roosevelt noted: "For the first time I have been utterly unable to enjoy a visit to my ranch. I shall be glad to get home. In its present form, stock-raising on the plains is doomed and can hardly outlast the century."
Moreton Frewen, approx. 1880, see text below.
Among those who left Wyoming was Sir Winston Churchill's uncle, Moreton Frewen (1853-1924). Reportedly, Frewen arrived in Wyoming with £16,000 and departed owing £30,000. Frewen convinced others, including Lords Dunraven and Londsdale, to invest in cattle. Frewen, referred to by some as "Mortal Ruin" and by others as a "sublime failure" and as the "splendid pauper," is now most remembered for his log mansion on Powder River which, among other things, boasted a solid walnut staircase. At the mansion, Frewen entertained the rich and famous of the Empire with lavish hunting parties.Some, at least, could best be described by the Australian term "Pom" or "Pommy," so-called from the name of a tropical fruit. One visitor was the Marquis of Queensberry, referred to by Oscar Wilde as the "Scarlet Marquis." Wilde apparently did not care for the Marquis, describing him as ""drunken, declasse and half-witted, and had, according to Wilde, a stableman's gait and dress, bowed legs, twitching hands, a hanging lower lip and a bestial grin.
Another visitor, later famed as a diplomat, Sir Maurice de Bunsen, sucessfully stalked and killed the ranch's only milch cow, thinking it to be a skinny bison.
Among those entertained were the Seventh Earl of Mayo, Dermot Robert Wyndham Bourke. The Seventh Earl's father had served as Vice-Roy of India but was assassinated at Port Blair by a madman just as the band was striking up Rule, Brittannia. Also visiting the ranch were Sir Samuel and Lady Baker. Although Sir Samuel was a noted world explorer, the Queen avoided receiving him due, in part, to the unconventional courtship of Sir Samuel and Lady Baker. Sir Samuel purchased the future Lady Baker at a bazaar in Bulgaria. Addtionally, Sir Samuel's reception in Victorian society was not helped when Sir Samuel's brother Valentine was accused of committing an indecent assault upon a woman in a railway carriage. Another who made the 250 miles trip north from Rock Creek, was the Fifth Earl of Donoughmore. During the Boer War, the Earl with other Irish lords raised two companies derisively known as the "Irish Hunt Contingent." The contingent's adventures, in the words of Thomas Pakenham, raised a "ripple of mirth" in the Empire. It was problably not funny to Lord Roberts. Twenty thousand troops had to be diverted in a vain attempt to effectate the contingent's rescue.
One hunting expedition in 1884 was spoiled by the death of Member of Parliament, the Honorable Gilbert H. C. "Gilly" Leigh, the eldest son of the William Henry Leigh, the Second Baron Leigh (Second Creation). For the circumstances of Leigh's death see Ten Sleep. The Leighs were famous cricketeers who spared no expense on the game. The First Baron Leigh had played cricket with Lord Byron in the first Harrow-Eton match. The First Baron's younger son, Gilbert's uncle, played for Harrow, Oxford, Gentlemen of Warwichshire and I Zingali. Thus, it should not have been a surprise, when Gilbert turned twenty-one, the birthday celebration took a week and included illuminations, fireworks, and feasting. The centerpiece of the celebration was a two-day cricket match between the Gentlemen of Warwichshire and I Zingali, the most exclusive and socially correct wandering cricket club in all of the Empire.
Gilbert and his uncle played for I Zingali and his brother played for the Gentlemen. the match ended when Gilbert, the last man out, scored a duck (in American terminology, a "goose egg"). I Zingali had few rules. The annual subscription was not permitted to exceed the entrance fee. There was no entrance fee. Membership was limited to 50. In 1845, one of the members was designated as the Perpetual President. Since the presidency was perpetual, no president has been elected since. The team colors were red, black, and gold. Wearing of ties with the team colors, however, was regarded as gauche, it simply was not done.
The death of Gilly Leigh was not the first time that reported deaths caused concern on for the hunting parties on Powder River. On August 20, 1879 The New York Times reported that the Honorable James Boothby Burke Roche, second son of Baron Fermoy of Ireland, had been killed. The Times report was greatly and prematurely exaggerated. Later Roche became the Third Baron and finally died in 1920. Two of Roche's brothers, Alexis Charles Burke Roche (1853-1914) and Edmund Burke Roche (1856-1919) also worked at the ranch. Indeed Alexis ran the place for a while causing so much dissension amongst the cowboys that Horace Plunkett, Frewen's partner, feared that he would have to work the ranch himself. After Alexis returned to Ireland, he created an equal stir there. He sold a horse to Sir Timmothy O'Brien. The horse was proved to be a broken-winded nag. Roche refused to take the horse back. At the Dunhallow Hunt, Sir Timmothy confronted Roche, "You are a liar and a cheat and a swindler; you have lived by swindling for the past 20 years." Roche sued. Ultimately the trial court found for Roche and awarded him one farthing, each party to bear their own costs and counsel fees. Roche appealed and the case was retried in London. This time, Roche was awarded £5. Fees and costs, however, were assessed against Sir Timmothy, the amount of which for the two trials practically broke Sir Timmothy. One moment of hilarity arose during the trial:
WITNESS: Lord Fermoy grabbed Sir Timothy's bridle.
THE JUDGE: For legal accuracy, was it the horse's bridle or Sir Timothy's?
WITNESS: The horses, my Lord, Sir Timothy was not bridled that day.
Moreton Frewen
On a bright and sunny morning in June, 1885, Moreton Frewen turned his horse south from the log mansion, never to return. His departure from Wyoming was unlamented. Later, the Cheyenne Sun observed, "Of all the English snobs of great pretensions who flew so high and sunk so low, probably the Frewens are the chiefs." The Sun's comments were mild compared with those of some of Frewen's friends. Sir Shane Leslie wrote the scathing biogaphy Studies in Sublime Failure, noting that at Cambridge Frewen was president of the Athenaeum, "a society of young men devoted to Baccus rather than to Pallas."
During his stay in Wyoming, Frewen worked for the preservation of the American bison and the wapiti and proposed that Yellowstone be expanded to take in the Big Horn Basin. Upon his return to England, Frewen for a time resided in the game keeper's house at the family manor, Brede Place. The manor is reputedly the second oldest inhabited structure in England. Her Majesty's residence at Windsor is the oldest, but at least it was updated by George IV. Brede Place is also reputedly the most haunted house in England. Amongst the ghosts is that of Sir Goddard Oxenbridge who allegedly dined on small children. The children of Sussex, fearful of being eaten, joined together and tempted Sir Goddard with a barrel of mead upon which he got drunk and passed out. The children then took a saw and cut Sir Goddard in half. When Colonel Cody's Wild West was performing in England in 1903, some of the cowboys who previously worked on Frewen's ranch persuaded him to drive the Deadwood Stage in the show.. Admiral Lord Charles Beresford and Frewen's cousin, Sir Shane Leslie, rode shotgun.
Frewen's finances recovered somewhat when in 1896 an uncle died while sailing and Frewen inherited a hunting lodge in County Cork. The income from Ireland provided Frewen with £2,000 a year. An additional inheritance in favor of Frewen's wife provided another £1,000. Nevertheless, the money was soon gone, expended on various schemes spread from Canada to Australia, India, and Africa. The schemes included irrigation in Indian, promotion of a gold crushing machine and a scheme to separate tin from zinc in Australia, shipping of timber from Siberia to Europe via the Northwest Passage, use of bat guano from Mexico for fertilizer (When he gave some to friends for use in their gardens, the plants died.), an elixir to be used on stale fish, and a proposal to capture German zeppelins to be used to carry the Royal Mail. In Wyoming, he proposed to fatten cattle, 4,000 head at a time in a cold-proof building at Superior, Wisconsin, for shipment to England and he proposed construction of a meat packing plant at Sherman Hill. The idea was that it would not be necessary to have an ice plant or refrigeration. Of Frewen's time in the cattle business, Sir Shane wrote, "Moreton believed that Britannia, like Europa, could be carried on the back of a steer."
Frewen's children were often embarrassed by the failure of Frewen to pay their school bills. Yet, somehow he managed to timely pay his club bills lest he be asked to resign. And nevertheless, as Frewen gadded about the planet losing fortunes for others, Frewen managed to impress American politicians to whom he was attracted like a fly to molasses, including William Jennings Bryan, with his economic ideas relating to silver. He widely predicted the election of Bryan. When Bryan lost the Nation gloated "the awful fact that, as usual, Mr. Moreton Frewen had not the slightest knowledge of the things he was talking about." His fervent promotion of "bimetalism" led John Hay to refer to Frewen as a "argento-maniac human."
To raise money, Frewen rented Brede Place out. One of the tenants was Stephen Crane who entertained the literati of the time at the estate. The manor, probably due to the penury of Frewen, had not been brought completely up-to-date and lacked some modern conveniences such as in-door plumbing. One house-guest, H. G. Wells, looked out a window one cold morning and observed the hill "studded with melancholy, preoccupied male guests." The County Cork lodge was burned down during the "Troubles."
Frewen's life was one which prompted Sir Shane Leslie to observe in a letter to Rudyard Kipling of "poor old Moreton," that his life "was worthier of making a novel from your pen than being trimmed into a biography." Kipling observed that Frewen lived "in every sense, except what is called common sense, very richly and wisely to his own extreme content, and if he had ever reached the golden crock of his dreams, he would have perished." Phil Sheridan was less complimentary, referring to Frewen as "a greedy, grasping Englishman." When Frewen died, his estate consisted of less than £50. Frewen Castle on Powder River was razed about 1912.
Sir Horace Plunkett
Sir Horace Curzon Plunkett, third son of the 16th Lord Dunsany of Meath, returned to Ireland. Sir Horace was a partner of Frewen in the Western Live-stock and Land Company and the Powder River Cattle Company. Sir Horace was also President of the Frontier Land and Cattle Company. He ran the E K Ranch and was a participant with J. M. Carey, William Irvine and F. E. Warren in the Wyoming Development Company which gave rise to Wheatland. The lessons learned by Sir Horace in Wyoming, however, did not go unheeded. Today, Sir Horace is remembered as the father of Irish agriculture. In Ireland, Sir Horace was elected to Parliament not withstanding that he was a Unionist, lisped and stuttered. He failed, however, of reelection. During the Irish Civil War, Sir Horace was treated, to use his own analogy from Ireland in the New Century, J. Murray, London (1904), "like a dog in a tennis court." As was Frewen's lodge, Sir Horace's house was burned down. Sir Horace moved to England. For the remainder of his life he was noted for his use of cowboy metaphors.
Thus, the era of the large foreign-owned cattle companies came to an end. As John Clay, manager of the Swan Land and Cattle Company, observed:
The gains of the open range business were swallowed up by the losses. From the inception of the opern range business in the West and Northwest, from say 1870 to 1888, it is doubtful if a single cent was made if you average up the business as a whole."
Thus, Clay noted, "As the South Sea bubble burst, as the Dutch tulip craze dissolved, this cattle gold brick withstood not the snow of winter."
But there is always an exception. John Clay was the exception. Clay had come to Wyoming in the 1880's to manage, among others the Swan Land and Cattle Company after Swan was fired. He owned the 71 Quarter Circle on the Sweetwater. He acted as agent with William H. Forrest for the Y L Cattle Company on the North Canadian. In 1886, he, with Charles H. Robinson, Sr. and Forrest, formed Clay, Robinson and Company which grew to be the largest commission agency in the country with offices in Chicaco, Omaha, St. Paul, Fort Worth, and Denver. By 1913, Clay, Robinson had some $120,000,000 in annual sales and purchases and owned 15 banks including ones in Cheyenne, Billings, Miles City, and Belle Fourche.. A commission agent is one who arranges the sale of a stockgrowers stock. The stock would be shipped to the stockyard and consigned to the commission agent who would then sell the cattle, sheep, etc. to the highest bidder and remit the proceeds as instructed by the stockgrower.
"Waiting for a Chinook," C. M. Russell
In 1886 Charlie Russell was employed by Kaufman and Stadler. Kaufman wrote asking how the cattle had fared. The response by Russell was a sketch of a starving cow in the snow. Kaufman displayed the sketch in his office which led to its popularity with requests of Russell for more copies. The version shown to the right was painted about 1903.
But the snow of winter was not the sole cause for the failures. As a result of over production of beef, prices the preceding year had plummeted. Thus, many stockgrowers had held on their cattle over the winter. Thus many were already under a financial strain. Micah Saufley noted that as early as November, 1886, Alexander Swan, "trembling on the verge of bankruptcy," began transferring assets into his wife's and daughter's names.
The ultimate impact, however, was a change in operations, a trend toward smaller ranches, the growing of alfalfa and hay, and the movement to sheep. Even the Two-Bar began the improvement of pasture and the growing of hay to carry smaller herds over the winter.
Music this page, The Big Corral. Not all cowboy songs date to the 19th Century. The Big Corral was written by Romaine Lowdermilk in 1922 and based on the gospel tune Press Along to Glory Land.
The Big Corral
(Verse)
That chuckwagon brute from the cattle chute.
Press along to the Big Corral.
He should be branded on the snoot.
Press along to the Big Corral
(Chorus)
Press along cowboy, press along,
Press along with a cowboy yell.
Press along with a noise, big noise,
Press along to the Big Corral.
(Verse)
Well, early in the mornin' 'bout -- half past four.
Press along to the Big Corral.
You'll hear him open his face to roar.
Press along to the Big Corral.
(Repeat Chorus)
(Verse)
The wrangler's out a-combing the hills.
Press along to the Big Corral.
So jump in your britches and grease up your gills.
Press along to the Big Corral.
(Repeat Chorus)
(Verse)
That chuck we get ain't fit to eat.
Press along to the Big Corral.
There's rocks in the beans and sand in the meat.
Press along to the Big Corral.
Click on title above for original article and more range stories with pics;
Next Page, Roundups continued.
Big Horn Die-Offs on Public Land.....Due to Private Livestock Grazing
It happened in the 1980's and wiped out nearly 95% of the Big Horns in one range...and now, it is happening again, all due to infectious pasturealosis caught from the domestic sheep "free-grazing" on our public lands. ----also the buffalo are catching it too and being killed (and blamed) for the spread of this sheep disease.
NOW IS THE TIME TO DEMAND AN END TO WELFARE RANCHING
Sheep Die-Off / Montana; Jourdonnais lies IN BOLD and ITALICS
biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
PNEUMONIA, BIGHORN SHEEP – USA: (MONTANA)
*****************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
[1]
Date: Wed 25 Nov 2009
Source: Local News 8.com, Associated Press (AP) report [edited]
Bighorn sheep near Darby dying of pneumonia
——————————————-
Montana wildlife officials say 2 bighorn sheep south of Darby have
died from pneumonia — raising fears about the health of a large herd
along the East Fork of the Bitterroot.
Pneumonia outbreaks among bighorn sheep can cause herd die offs. One
last year [2008] in the Elkhorn Mountains near Helena killed an
estimated 200 sheep and similar die-offs occurred in 1995 in the
Highland Mountains and 1993 in the Tendoy Mountains.
Fish, Wildlife and Parks veterinarian Jennifer Ramsey says wildlife
agents plan to cull the East Fork Bitterroot Herd to remove sick
animals. The hope is to limit the spread of the disease, but once an
animal becomes sick it will likely die in a matter of days.
The herd of about 185 sheep was established in 1972 when 32 of the
animals were transplanted into the area.
–
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
******
[2]
Date: Wed 25 Nov 2009
Source: Missoulain.com, Ravalli Republic report [edited]
Bitterroot bighorn sheep herd has pneumonia; disease fatal
———————————————————-
State wildlife officials have confirmed that bighorn sheep from the
East Fork Bitterroot herd south of Darby recently died of pneumonia.
“It’s really bad news,” said Craig Jourdonnais, Bitterroot-based
biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “There’s been a
history of herds losing 60 to 70 percent of their numbers in a very
short period of time when something like this hits.”
The nearly always fatal respiratory disease was first suspected after
hunters reported seeing coughing bighorn sheep near the East Fork
last Sunday [22 Nov 2009].
Jourdonnais said he found 2 dead sheep on the East Fork Road. The 2
rams — an 8 1/2- and 4 1/2-year-old — tested positive for pneumonia
at FWP’s wildlife laboratory in Bozeman Tuesday [24 Nov 2009].
“Both had a very advanced case of pneumonia,” Jourdonnais said. “The
vet had to almost peel their lungs away from the rib cage.”
Jennifer Ramsey, FWP’s wildlife veterinarian in Bozeman said the
state will attempt to cull more sheep from the herd over the coming
weeks. “Our top priority is to remove sick and dying animals and to
collect biological samples for testing,” she said. “Additional
laboratory tests will determine the specific strain of the bacteria,
and removing sick animals could help slow the spread of the disease.”
Jourdonnais said he will shoot 3 or 4 sheep that are exhibiting signs
of the disease on Wednesday [25 Nov 2009] for further testing.
“Typically we don’t have a lot of options in cases like this,”
Jourdonnais said. “It tends to have to run its course.” Once bighorns
contract pneumonia, they die within a few days. There are no known
vaccines to prevent pneumonia in wild sheep.
The East Fork bighorn sheep herd was established in 1972 when 35
sheep ere transplanted there.
Jourdonnais said he counted 185 sheep last year [2008] during an
aerial survey last March [2009]. “They all looked vibrant and healthy
at that time,” he said.
The herd has been the source of some “tremendous rams” over the past
few years, with a few close to record book size, Jourdonnais said.
“They are a real asset to the Bitterroot,” he said. “The East Fork
herd is pretty well known.”
In extreme cases, pneumonia-related outbreaks among bighorn sheep can
result in herd “die-offs.” The most recent case in Montana occurred
in the Elkhorn Mountains near Helena. Similar die-offs happened in
the Highland Mountains in 1995 and in the Tendoy Mountains in 1993.
Jourdonnais said there’s no evidence the disease originated in
domestic sheep or goats. “We do have a few isolated herds of sheep
and goats nearby, but there is absolutely no knowledge that has
anything to do with what’s going on here,” he said.
It is illegal to possess a bighorn sheep head picked up in the wild.
Anyone who finds a dead or sick bighorn sheep is asked to call FWP in
Missoula at 542-5500.
[Byline: Perry Backus]
–
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[_Mannheimia haemolytica_ (formerly _Pasteurella haemolytica_) and
_Pasteurella multocida_ are the most common bacterial organisms
causing pneumonia in sheep. Most sheep affected do display some
degree of anorexia, some evidence of labored breathing, and loss of
weight.
While culling of sick animals may seem extreme, this particular
disease runs through bighorn sheep with disastrous results so it may
be the way to save the larger portion of the herd.
If samples from any of the bighorn sheep have been sent for testing,
we would appreciate knowing outcome of the bacterial cultures.
Various photos of bighorn sheep may be found at
. - Mod.TG]
[The state of Montana in the Western United States can be seen on the
HealthMap/ProMED-mail interactive map at
. - Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ]
[see also:
2006
----
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (NM) 20060316.0824
2005
----
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (CA) 20050828.2546
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (SD) (02) 20050312.0729
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (SD) 20050309.0699
2004
----
Brucellosis, bighorn sheep - USA (WY) 20040118.0194
2002
----
Unexplained pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (Wyoming) 20020322.3791
1999
----
Epizootic hem. disease, deer, bighorn sheep - Canada (BC) 19991109.2005
1998
----
Psoroptic mange, bighorn sheep - USA (Utah) (02) 19980115.0114
Psoroptic mange, bighorn sheep - USA (Utah) 19980106.0031
1996
----
Bighorn sheep mortality, 1995 19960718.1287]
……………………………..sb/tg/mj/lm
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail’s web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Big Horn River, Montana
NOW IS THE TIME TO DEMAND AN END TO WELFARE RANCHING
Sheep Die-Off / Montana; Jourdonnais lies IN BOLD and ITALICS
biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
PNEUMONIA, BIGHORN SHEEP – USA: (MONTANA)
*****************************************
A ProMED-mail post
ProMED-mail is a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
[1]
Date: Wed 25 Nov 2009
Source: Local News 8.com, Associated Press (AP) report [edited]
Bighorn sheep near Darby dying of pneumonia
——————————————-
Montana wildlife officials say 2 bighorn sheep south of Darby have
died from pneumonia — raising fears about the health of a large herd
along the East Fork of the Bitterroot.
Pneumonia outbreaks among bighorn sheep can cause herd die offs. One
last year [2008] in the Elkhorn Mountains near Helena killed an
estimated 200 sheep and similar die-offs occurred in 1995 in the
Highland Mountains and 1993 in the Tendoy Mountains.
Fish, Wildlife and Parks veterinarian Jennifer Ramsey says wildlife
agents plan to cull the East Fork Bitterroot Herd to remove sick
animals. The hope is to limit the spread of the disease, but once an
animal becomes sick it will likely die in a matter of days.
The herd of about 185 sheep was established in 1972 when 32 of the
animals were transplanted into the area.
–
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
******
[2]
Date: Wed 25 Nov 2009
Source: Missoulain.com, Ravalli Republic report [edited]
Bitterroot bighorn sheep herd has pneumonia; disease fatal
———————————————————-
State wildlife officials have confirmed that bighorn sheep from the
East Fork Bitterroot herd south of Darby recently died of pneumonia.
“It’s really bad news,” said Craig Jourdonnais, Bitterroot-based
biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “There’s been a
history of herds losing 60 to 70 percent of their numbers in a very
short period of time when something like this hits.”
The nearly always fatal respiratory disease was first suspected after
hunters reported seeing coughing bighorn sheep near the East Fork
last Sunday [22 Nov 2009].
Jourdonnais said he found 2 dead sheep on the East Fork Road. The 2
rams — an 8 1/2- and 4 1/2-year-old — tested positive for pneumonia
at FWP’s wildlife laboratory in Bozeman Tuesday [24 Nov 2009].
“Both had a very advanced case of pneumonia,” Jourdonnais said. “The
vet had to almost peel their lungs away from the rib cage.”
Jennifer Ramsey, FWP’s wildlife veterinarian in Bozeman said the
state will attempt to cull more sheep from the herd over the coming
weeks. “Our top priority is to remove sick and dying animals and to
collect biological samples for testing,” she said. “Additional
laboratory tests will determine the specific strain of the bacteria,
and removing sick animals could help slow the spread of the disease.”
Jourdonnais said he will shoot 3 or 4 sheep that are exhibiting signs
of the disease on Wednesday [25 Nov 2009] for further testing.
“Typically we don’t have a lot of options in cases like this,”
Jourdonnais said. “It tends to have to run its course.” Once bighorns
contract pneumonia, they die within a few days. There are no known
vaccines to prevent pneumonia in wild sheep.
The East Fork bighorn sheep herd was established in 1972 when 35
sheep ere transplanted there.
Jourdonnais said he counted 185 sheep last year [2008] during an
aerial survey last March [2009]. “They all looked vibrant and healthy
at that time,” he said.
The herd has been the source of some “tremendous rams” over the past
few years, with a few close to record book size, Jourdonnais said.
“They are a real asset to the Bitterroot,” he said. “The East Fork
herd is pretty well known.”
In extreme cases, pneumonia-related outbreaks among bighorn sheep can
result in herd “die-offs.” The most recent case in Montana occurred
in the Elkhorn Mountains near Helena. Similar die-offs happened in
the Highland Mountains in 1995 and in the Tendoy Mountains in 1993.
Jourdonnais said there’s no evidence the disease originated in
domestic sheep or goats. “We do have a few isolated herds of sheep
and goats nearby, but there is absolutely no knowledge that has
anything to do with what’s going on here,” he said.
It is illegal to possess a bighorn sheep head picked up in the wild.
Anyone who finds a dead or sick bighorn sheep is asked to call FWP in
Missoula at 542-5500.
[Byline: Perry Backus]
–
Communicated by:
ProMED-mail
[_Mannheimia haemolytica_ (formerly _Pasteurella haemolytica_) and
_Pasteurella multocida_ are the most common bacterial organisms
causing pneumonia in sheep. Most sheep affected do display some
degree of anorexia, some evidence of labored breathing, and loss of
weight.
While culling of sick animals may seem extreme, this particular
disease runs through bighorn sheep with disastrous results so it may
be the way to save the larger portion of the herd.
If samples from any of the bighorn sheep have been sent for testing,
we would appreciate knowing outcome of the bacterial cultures.
Various photos of bighorn sheep may be found at
. - Mod.TG]
[The state of Montana in the Western United States can be seen on the
HealthMap/ProMED-mail interactive map at
. - Sr.Tech.Ed.MJ]
[see also:
2006
----
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (NM) 20060316.0824
2005
----
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (CA) 20050828.2546
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (SD) (02) 20050312.0729
Pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (SD) 20050309.0699
2004
----
Brucellosis, bighorn sheep - USA (WY) 20040118.0194
2002
----
Unexplained pneumonia, bighorn sheep - USA (Wyoming) 20020322.3791
1999
----
Epizootic hem. disease, deer, bighorn sheep - Canada (BC) 19991109.2005
1998
----
Psoroptic mange, bighorn sheep - USA (Utah) (02) 19980115.0114
Psoroptic mange, bighorn sheep - USA (Utah) 19980106.0031
1996
----
Bighorn sheep mortality, 1995 19960718.1287]
……………………………..sb/tg/mj/lm
*##########################################################*
************************************************************
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that
are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the
information, and of any statements or opinions based
thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in
using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID
and its associated service providers shall not be held
responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any
damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted
or archived material.
************************************************************
Become a ProMED-mail Premium Subscriber at
************************************************************
Visit ProMED-mail’s web site at .
Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org
(NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your
full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send
commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help,
etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a
human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
############################################################
############################################################
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Big Horn River, Montana
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Ely FOIA Appeal / 3rd Update / March 15, 2010
Calling Mrs. Johnson again to find out why I havent received a response to my FOIA appeal sent in last November. She has me on hold right now while she "looks up" the record. Mrs. Johnson is back now, and tells me that my appeal is still under review and also added (again) that I should be hearing something "in a few weeks" more. However, that is what she told me last Jan. 29 the last time I called her. I told her that basically all I am looking for at this time is some sort of "official" verification that my appeal was even received. Her reply to me was to inform me that such letters would not be issued until the appeal can be reviewed. She reminded me (again) that the dept was "backlogged" with such appeals and I said I imagine that you are, HOWEVER; I reminded her again that there was a statutoriy imposed statue of limitations on the time alloted for them to reply to FOIA appeal and I also inquired of her as to how long she would suggest I wait before suing them for failure to reply. She responded by informing me that I can direct my inquiry to her supervisor Darrell Strayhorn, the offical officer in charge of FOIA appeals, and offered to switch me over to Mr. Strayhorns voice-mail. Of course I said thank you and did in fact leave a message today for him inquiring of the status of my FOIA appeal submitted last November. Stay tuned to this post for updates.
JANUARY 29th, 2010 - 2nd Update
I just got off the phone with a Dorathy Johnson, FOIL "Special Appeals" Officer, who verified for me that my appeal was (indeed) recieved at their (DOI) Office on December 9, 2009.
I reminded her that it has been TWO MONTHS since I sent the appeal, and have not heard anything on it yet. She informed me that I should be recieving something in the mail soon. I asked her if she could give me an idea as to just how long it might be, reminding her that there is a statute of limitation on these things and I was just curious to know how long I should be expected to wait before I trouble them with a phone call again. She told me to "give it two more weeks."
If any one else wants to follow up on the "Jubic FOIA Appeal" you can call Ms. Johnson at (202) 2085339.
---------------------
Sent Nov. 25, 2009, and still no reply to my FOIA appeal. Do you think they could be ignoring me, hoping I wil just go away? NOT. Tomorrow I shall give them a call to remind them I am still waiting to know what became of the over 600 horses taken from the Seaman, White River (Golden Gate) and Caliente Districts last year;
Department of the Interior / FOIA Officer
1849 C St. N.W. MS-6556, MIB
Washington, DC 20240
Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPEAL
# OS-2010-00066
Ely District BLM # NV-NVL 0000-2010-001
To Whom It May Concern;
I am writing to appeal a denial of my request to be provided with information concerning the number and location of all the wild horses and burros rounded up in 2009 from the Golden Gate, Seaman, White River and Caliente Herds, which by the numbers estimated in the respective EAs was said to total over 600 head of horses.
As indicated in my original request (attached) ....”The information I am seeking to obtain includes the names and locations of all the long and short-term holding facilities where these particular herd-members are being kept, whether said facilities are owned by the BLM or leased under private contract. I would also like to be provided with all of the individual herd-members brand numbers along with individual discriptions or photographs or any other information that would identify the individual horses removed from the above listed rangelands."
In response to my request, Ditha Hutchinson, FOIA Coordinator for the Ely District Office of the BLM, informed me by letter that they “do not have the information” I requested,” and forwarded my request to Arthur A. DiGrazia, Jr. , Wild Horse and Burro Operations Manager, Ridgecrest Regional Wild Horse and Burro Corrals, 300 S. Richmond Rd, Ridgecrest, CA 93555 (See Ely District Letter dated Nov. 16, 2009, attached)
On or about November 16, 2009, I did receive a letter from Hector Villalobos, Field Manager at the Ridgecrest Short Term Holding Facility in Ridgecrest California, who informed me that “to his knowledge” all wild horses gathered in the BLM Ely District during the 2009 season were transported to the Ridgecrest Facility and “no other.” However, he did not provide me with any documents that would validate that any transfer of animals had occurred between the Ely District and the Ridgecrest facility, no trucking record or receipts or bills of ladel, etc. (See Villalobos Letter dated Nov. 16, 2009, attached)
Included in Mr. Villalobos response was two documents, both "generic" cut-out portions of something else (retracted), one is a generic partial post-gather report which is not even printed on offical letter-head of any kind nor does it have anything printed upon it that would substantiate its date, author or place of orgin. In this "report," it is indicated only that a total of 689 horses were gathered from these complexes. There is nothing in this report to indicate what became of them after gather. (See partial post-gather report attached)
Mr. Villalobos then goes on to admit that the Ridgecrest Facility has processed only 15 wild horses from Ely District, which he states were gathered from the White River Complex. As proof of the processing of these 15 horses, Mr Villalobos submits a second “generic” document with a series of 15 numbers on it indicating the freeze-mark and signalment numbers of 15 horses. As mentioned above regarding the post-gather report document, this document is also a "generic" cut and paste rendition of numbers printed upon plain paper with no official letter-head of any kind nor anything printed upon it that would substantiate its date, author or orgin, or the current whereabouts of the 15 horses. (See “Prepped” Sheet attached)
I am appealing the response of the Ely District as a blanket denial and the response of Mr. Villalobos as a partial denial of my request and do so on the following grounds;
1. I was seeking information on the identification and whereabouts of over 600 wild horses gathered from these complexes and received only generic information regarding 15 horses allegedly gathered from the White River Complex and processed at Ridgecrest. The documents, devoid of any verifiable information, are insuffient as proof of gather, transfer or receipt and current whereabouts as same is not even on official letterhead so as to be able to acertain in fact which office had generated them or when or by whom. The documents are also unsigned or un-verified by any signature of their author.
2. The response does not fulfill any portion of my request seeking information on the whereabouts of ALL the wild horses gathered from these various complexes, including the 15 alleged to have been processed at Ridgecrest. The reply from the Ely District stating that they have no records whatsoever in regards to the “disposition” of these horses is incredible, and Mr. Villalobos' off-hand, "un-official" statement that “to his knowledge” the horses were transfered to the Ridgecrest Facility is an insufficent reply to a request for documentary proof as to the whereabouts of these horses allegedly gathered from the Ely District and allegedly transferred to Ridgecrest Short-term Holding Facility. Moreover, the "processing" records of the 15 horses allegedly taken from the White River HMA and allegedly transferred to Ridgecrest do not state where these horses were actually taken from nor does it state that these horses are being held at Ridgecrest. What I received was a series of numbers printed on a plain piece of paper devoid of any "officiality" with only the words "processed" stamped across the top. NO OTHER information at all appears on this document, not even any sort of offical or departmental letter-head or identification of any kind. There are no dates or signatures. This document tells me nothing.
I am appealing in hopes that I will be provided OFFICAL dated and signed departmental documents as kept in the normal course of business regarding the whereabouts of the 689 horses allegedly gathered from the Ely District BLM in 2009 and un-accounted for thus far. The information and documents provided in reply to my FOIA request are woefully insufficient as proof of the "chain of custody" or whereabouts and /or fate of these horses, and it is sufficient proof of same that I am seeking to obtain.
Thanking you in advance for any consideration you may give this matter. I anxiously await your reply.
Yours, etc.,
__________________________
Christine A. Jubic
JANUARY 29th, 2010 - 2nd Update
I just got off the phone with a Dorathy Johnson, FOIL "Special Appeals" Officer, who verified for me that my appeal was (indeed) recieved at their (DOI) Office on December 9, 2009.
I reminded her that it has been TWO MONTHS since I sent the appeal, and have not heard anything on it yet. She informed me that I should be recieving something in the mail soon. I asked her if she could give me an idea as to just how long it might be, reminding her that there is a statute of limitation on these things and I was just curious to know how long I should be expected to wait before I trouble them with a phone call again. She told me to "give it two more weeks."
If any one else wants to follow up on the "Jubic FOIA Appeal" you can call Ms. Johnson at (202) 2085339.
---------------------
Sent Nov. 25, 2009, and still no reply to my FOIA appeal. Do you think they could be ignoring me, hoping I wil just go away? NOT. Tomorrow I shall give them a call to remind them I am still waiting to know what became of the over 600 horses taken from the Seaman, White River (Golden Gate) and Caliente Districts last year;
Department of the Interior / FOIA Officer
1849 C St. N.W. MS-6556, MIB
Washington, DC 20240
Re: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPEAL
# OS-2010-00066
Ely District BLM # NV-NVL 0000-2010-001
To Whom It May Concern;
I am writing to appeal a denial of my request to be provided with information concerning the number and location of all the wild horses and burros rounded up in 2009 from the Golden Gate, Seaman, White River and Caliente Herds, which by the numbers estimated in the respective EAs was said to total over 600 head of horses.
As indicated in my original request (attached) ....”The information I am seeking to obtain includes the names and locations of all the long and short-term holding facilities where these particular herd-members are being kept, whether said facilities are owned by the BLM or leased under private contract. I would also like to be provided with all of the individual herd-members brand numbers along with individual discriptions or photographs or any other information that would identify the individual horses removed from the above listed rangelands."
In response to my request, Ditha Hutchinson, FOIA Coordinator for the Ely District Office of the BLM, informed me by letter that they “do not have the information” I requested,” and forwarded my request to Arthur A. DiGrazia, Jr. , Wild Horse and Burro Operations Manager, Ridgecrest Regional Wild Horse and Burro Corrals, 300 S. Richmond Rd, Ridgecrest, CA 93555 (See Ely District Letter dated Nov. 16, 2009, attached)
On or about November 16, 2009, I did receive a letter from Hector Villalobos, Field Manager at the Ridgecrest Short Term Holding Facility in Ridgecrest California, who informed me that “to his knowledge” all wild horses gathered in the BLM Ely District during the 2009 season were transported to the Ridgecrest Facility and “no other.” However, he did not provide me with any documents that would validate that any transfer of animals had occurred between the Ely District and the Ridgecrest facility, no trucking record or receipts or bills of ladel, etc. (See Villalobos Letter dated Nov. 16, 2009, attached)
Included in Mr. Villalobos response was two documents, both "generic" cut-out portions of something else (retracted), one is a generic partial post-gather report which is not even printed on offical letter-head of any kind nor does it have anything printed upon it that would substantiate its date, author or place of orgin. In this "report," it is indicated only that a total of 689 horses were gathered from these complexes. There is nothing in this report to indicate what became of them after gather. (See partial post-gather report attached)
Mr. Villalobos then goes on to admit that the Ridgecrest Facility has processed only 15 wild horses from Ely District, which he states were gathered from the White River Complex. As proof of the processing of these 15 horses, Mr Villalobos submits a second “generic” document with a series of 15 numbers on it indicating the freeze-mark and signalment numbers of 15 horses. As mentioned above regarding the post-gather report document, this document is also a "generic" cut and paste rendition of numbers printed upon plain paper with no official letter-head of any kind nor anything printed upon it that would substantiate its date, author or orgin, or the current whereabouts of the 15 horses. (See “Prepped” Sheet attached)
I am appealing the response of the Ely District as a blanket denial and the response of Mr. Villalobos as a partial denial of my request and do so on the following grounds;
1. I was seeking information on the identification and whereabouts of over 600 wild horses gathered from these complexes and received only generic information regarding 15 horses allegedly gathered from the White River Complex and processed at Ridgecrest. The documents, devoid of any verifiable information, are insuffient as proof of gather, transfer or receipt and current whereabouts as same is not even on official letterhead so as to be able to acertain in fact which office had generated them or when or by whom. The documents are also unsigned or un-verified by any signature of their author.
2. The response does not fulfill any portion of my request seeking information on the whereabouts of ALL the wild horses gathered from these various complexes, including the 15 alleged to have been processed at Ridgecrest. The reply from the Ely District stating that they have no records whatsoever in regards to the “disposition” of these horses is incredible, and Mr. Villalobos' off-hand, "un-official" statement that “to his knowledge” the horses were transfered to the Ridgecrest Facility is an insufficent reply to a request for documentary proof as to the whereabouts of these horses allegedly gathered from the Ely District and allegedly transferred to Ridgecrest Short-term Holding Facility. Moreover, the "processing" records of the 15 horses allegedly taken from the White River HMA and allegedly transferred to Ridgecrest do not state where these horses were actually taken from nor does it state that these horses are being held at Ridgecrest. What I received was a series of numbers printed on a plain piece of paper devoid of any "officiality" with only the words "processed" stamped across the top. NO OTHER information at all appears on this document, not even any sort of offical or departmental letter-head or identification of any kind. There are no dates or signatures. This document tells me nothing.
I am appealing in hopes that I will be provided OFFICAL dated and signed departmental documents as kept in the normal course of business regarding the whereabouts of the 689 horses allegedly gathered from the Ely District BLM in 2009 and un-accounted for thus far. The information and documents provided in reply to my FOIA request are woefully insufficient as proof of the "chain of custody" or whereabouts and /or fate of these horses, and it is sufficient proof of same that I am seeking to obtain.
Thanking you in advance for any consideration you may give this matter. I anxiously await your reply.
Yours, etc.,
__________________________
Christine A. Jubic
CALICO COMMENT
No "snots and bugars" pleaing here - just the plain and simple truth.
WARNING! EXPLICIT (foul) Language, not suitable for youth or easily offended adults
Click on title above to access
WARNING! EXPLICIT (foul) Language, not suitable for youth or easily offended adults
Click on title above to access
Saturday, November 21, 2009
"Wild Idea" Bufffalo Meat - MMPU Will Travel
Click on title above to go to their website where they tell us a little more about their Buffalo Slaughter operations,.....They have those awful "MMPUs" (Mobile Meat Processing Units"otherwise known as slaughterhouses on wheels....all inspected by our USDA (the trucks, that is, not necessarily the meat)
This is a South Dakota mobile slaughter operation. They specialize in killing buffalo but I guess they will kill mjust about anything anyone pays them to. I wonder if they are under govt contract......Hummmm.
Click on the title above to go to their website and see who they are partnering with,...a group of Native Americans (Sioux) who have organized their own selves into a sort of food and farming co-op they named "The Sustainable Harvest Alliance"
This is a South Dakota mobile slaughter operation. They specialize in killing buffalo but I guess they will kill mjust about anything anyone pays them to. I wonder if they are under govt contract......Hummmm.
Click on the title above to go to their website and see who they are partnering with,...a group of Native Americans (Sioux) who have organized their own selves into a sort of food and farming co-op they named "The Sustainable Harvest Alliance"
National Directory of "In Use" USDA Approved Mobile Slaughterhouses
Otherwise known as MMPUs: Mobile Meat Processing Units
Click on title above to go to the directory
Click on title above to go to the directory
Friday, November 20, 2009
Title VII: More Proof FLPMA Does NOT Apply in WFH&B Country!
Federal Land Policy & Management Act; TITLE VII -EFFECT ON EXISTING RIGHTS;
Sec. 701. [43 U.S.C. 1701 note] (a) Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act.(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, in the event of conflict with or inconsistency between this Act and the Acts of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 874; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-1181j), and May 24, 1939 (53 Stat. 753), insofar as they relate to management of timber resources, and disposition of revenues from lands and resources, the latter Acts shall prevail.
(c) All withdrawals, reservations, classifications, and designations in effect as of the date of approval of this Act shall remain in full force and effect until modified under the provisions of this Act or other applicable law.(d) Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as permitting any person to place, or allow to be placed, spent oil shale, overburden, or byproducts from the recovery of other minerals found with oil shale, on any Federal land other than Federal land which has been leased for the recovery of shale oil under the Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437, as amended; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as modifying, revoking, or changing any provision of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
(f) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to repeal any existing law by implication.
(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States or–
(1) as affecting in any way any law governing appropriation or use of, or Federal right to, water on public lands;
(2) as expanding or diminishing Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in water resources development or control;
(3) as displacing, superseding, limiting, or modifying any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of two or more States or of two or more States and the Federal Government;
(4) as superseding, modifying, or repealing, except as specifically set forth in this Act, existing laws applicable to the various Federal agencies which are authorized to develop or participate in the development of water resources or to exercise licensing or regulatory functions in relation thereto;
(5) as modifying the terms of any interstate compact; or
(6) as a limitation upon any State criminal statute or upon the police power of the respective States, or as derogating the authority of a local police officer in the performance of his duties, or as depriving any State or political subdivision thereof of any right it may have to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction on the national resource lands; or as amending, limiting, or infringing the existing laws providing grants of lands to the States.
(h) All actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights.
(i) The adequacy of reports required by this Act to be submitted to the Congress or its committees shall not be subject to judicial review.
(j) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the distribution of livestock grazing revenues to local governments under the Granger-Thye Act (64 Stat. 85, 16 U.S.C. 580h), under the
50 ———— Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500), under the Act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 501), and under the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 557).
Sec. 701. [43 U.S.C. 1701 note] (a) Nothing in this Act, or in any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land use right or authorization existing on the date of approval of this Act.(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, in the event of conflict with or inconsistency between this Act and the Acts of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 874; 43 U.S.C. 1181a-1181j), and May 24, 1939 (53 Stat. 753), insofar as they relate to management of timber resources, and disposition of revenues from lands and resources, the latter Acts shall prevail.
(c) All withdrawals, reservations, classifications, and designations in effect as of the date of approval of this Act shall remain in full force and effect until modified under the provisions of this Act or other applicable law.(d) Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall be construed as permitting any person to place, or allow to be placed, spent oil shale, overburden, or byproducts from the recovery of other minerals found with oil shale, on any Federal land other than Federal land which has been leased for the recovery of shale oil under the Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437, as amended; 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as modifying, revoking, or changing any provision of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
(f) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to repeal any existing law by implication.
(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States or–
(1) as affecting in any way any law governing appropriation or use of, or Federal right to, water on public lands;
(2) as expanding or diminishing Federal or State jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in water resources development or control;
(3) as displacing, superseding, limiting, or modifying any interstate compact or the jurisdiction or responsibility of any legally established joint or common agency of two or more States or of two or more States and the Federal Government;
(4) as superseding, modifying, or repealing, except as specifically set forth in this Act, existing laws applicable to the various Federal agencies which are authorized to develop or participate in the development of water resources or to exercise licensing or regulatory functions in relation thereto;
(5) as modifying the terms of any interstate compact; or
(6) as a limitation upon any State criminal statute or upon the police power of the respective States, or as derogating the authority of a local police officer in the performance of his duties, or as depriving any State or political subdivision thereof of any right it may have to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction on the national resource lands; or as amending, limiting, or infringing the existing laws providing grants of lands to the States.
(h) All actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights.
(i) The adequacy of reports required by this Act to be submitted to the Congress or its committees shall not be subject to judicial review.
(j) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the distribution of livestock grazing revenues to local governments under the Granger-Thye Act (64 Stat. 85, 16 U.S.C. 580h), under the
50 ———— Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
Act of May 23, 1908 (35 Stat. 260, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 500), under the Act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat. 843, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 501), and under the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 557).
Reknowned Wild-Life Ecologist Speaks Out for Wild Horses and AGAINST the ROAM Act & The Mis-management of the BLM
Click on title above to go to YouTube Vid showing world-reknowned wild-life bioligist Craig Downer speak up for wild equines, and against the ROAM Act and the blatent disregard of the BLM concerning the Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 that statutorily designated these lands as PRINCIPALLY for wild equines
Winnemucca EA / More BLM BS, Lies & Mis-Information
Click on title above for original document with Index and Pics;We have until SUNDAY(tomorrow) to comment
BLOGGERS NOTE: "Notes to Self" Highlighted below;
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wild horses and burros are managed today in designated habitat called Herd Management Areas (HMAs). An Appropriate Management Level (AML) is established for each HMA. (NOT) The AML is (THE BLMs)estimate of wild horses and/or burros the habitat can support while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance with other resource values and uses. (AMLs ALWAYS SET TOO LOW AND THERE IS NO REQUIRED "BALANCING ACT" WITH OTHER RESOURCES AS THE WFHBA MANDATES THAT THE LANDS BE USED PRINCIPALLY FOR WILD EQUINES. THE 302(a) EXCEPTION TO FLPMA EXEMPTS LANDS FROM ANY "BALANCING OF RESOURCES" FOR LANDS SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE BY STATUTE FOR A CERTAIN USE.)Population and vegetative monitoring is done to ensure that animals and rangelands remain healthy. Stated as a population range to allow for the periodic removal of animals (to the low range) and subsequent population growth (to the high range) between removals (gathers).
This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the proposal to capture 2,476-2,787 wild horses, release up to 264, and remove 2,476-2,523 excess wild horses from the Calico Mountains Complex (Complex) which includes the following Herd Management Area (HMAs): Black Rock Range East Black Rock Range West Calico Mountains Granite Range Warm Springs Canyon
Wild horses from these HMAs would be gathered as a Complex or unit as herds move and interact between them. The potential gather area would extend beyond the HMA boundaries as displayed in Map 1 as wild horses have moved outside of HMAs in search of forage, water and space. Burros are only found in the Warm Springs Canyon HMA and would not be gathered or removed as the current population estimate is within the established AML for burros in that HMA. Adjustment of the current AMLs will also not be analyzed in this EA.
The gather would begin in about December 2009 and is expected to take about three months due to potential winter weather delays and the logistics involved in moving traps and holding sites numerous times. Winter gathers in this area are preferred as foals are older and wild horses are down off of the highest elevations, reducing the travel distance to trap site locations. The proposed gather is needed to achieve and maintain the established AML and prevent further range deterioration resulting from the current overpopulation of wild horses within the affected HMAs(WHAT YEAR WERE THESE AMLs SET? I THINK 1980s?)
The Calico Mountain Complex comprises a total of about 542,100 acres and is located about 5-66 miles north and east of Gerlach, in northwest Nevada within Humboldt and Washoe counties. A portion of the area is located within the Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area (NCA). Refer to Map 1.
This EA contains the site-specific analysis of potential impacts that could result with the implementation of the Proposed Action, Alternative or No Action. The EA ensures compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Based on the following analysis of potential environmental consequences, a determination can be made whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or issue a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). A FONSI documents why implementation of the selected alternative will not result in environmental impacts that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
1.1 Background Information
The current combined AML (COMBINED? THOUGHT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FIGURE THEM INDIVIDUALLY - ON A AMLs BY AML BASIS)for wild horses is established as a range of 572-952 wild horses. Managing wild horse populations within this number is expected to assure a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship within the Calico Mountains Complex. A direct count census was conducted in September 2009 showing a present population estimate of 3055 wild horses.
The last gather occurred in the winter of 2004-2005 when 2,033 wild horses were gathered, 1,623 removed, and 410 released back to the range. Two hundred and thirty-nine mares were treated with a Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP-22) vaccine (i.e., fertility control agent) and branded for future identification. Following the gather, an estimated 575 wild horses remained in the HMA which was the low combined range of the AML.(HOW CAN IT BE THAT OF THE 575 WHs left and 239 of them were given birth control,...how can it be that their numbers increased so much and so fast?)
However, a helicopter aerial population survey completed in March 2008 resulted in a direct count of 2,067 head, including nine burros. This data suggests an average annual growth rate of over 50% which is unrealistic. Wild horse herds in this area generally increase between 20-30% annually. Instead, this data suggests the post gather population estimate was substantially less than the actual populations. This is likely attributable to two factors: (1) census data used prior to the 2004-2005 gather was incomplete due to poor weather conditions and the population estimate was lower than actual, and (2) because wild horses range widely in this area, they may have moved out of the area during the gather operation.
The current estimated population of 3,095 wild horses for the Calico Mountains Complex is based on current modeling and confirmed with an aerial census conducted in September 2009. This estimate is based upon survey results projected using historic growth rates for each HMA (20-27%) and include this year’s foal crop. The current population is about 5.5 times the low range of the AML (572 head) or about three times over the carrying capacity or high range AML of 952 head.
The current U.S. Drought Monitor classifies northwest Nevada as severe to abnormally dry (WHERE SEVERE AS OPPOSED TO "ABNORMALLY" DRY?)(http://drought.unl.edu.dm, July 28, 2009). The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook indicates drought in northern Nevada is expected to persist (valid July 16 through October, 2009. Results of drought conditions is evident throughout the Complex with low forage production in some areas and decreased water flows, although spotty June rains did help forage production and several dirt reservoirs caught some runoff.
Recent monitoring studies and observations in the Calico Complex indicate that moderate and heavy utilization has occurred in the upland habitats and in many lentic and lotic riparian areas (studies available for review at the Winnemucca Field Office). This along with the continued drought confirms the established management range for the wild horse and burro population in the Calico Complex is still appropriate.(NOT - THE CONDITIONS CONFIRM THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO REMOVE THE PRIVATELY OWNED CATTLE OFF OF THESE LANDS THAT ARE, BY STATUTE, SUPPOSED TO BE UTILIZED PRINCIPALLY BY WILD HORSES AND BURROS!NOW IS THE TIME TO START PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE LAWS, SPECIFICALLY, THE WFRHBA, CFR 4710.5 AND FLMPA SEC. 302 (a)
Analysis of the above information indicates the current AML of 572-952 wild horses in the Calico Mountains Complex is appropriate (NOT)and that excess wild horses are present and require immediate removal.(NOT: REMOVE THE COWS!)
1.2 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to capture 2,476-2,787 wild horses, release up to 264, and remove 2,476-2,523 excess animals of the estimated 3,095 wild horses estimated in the Complex. This would achieve a remaining population within the AML range and protect rangeland resources from the deterioration associated with the current overpopulation of wild horses as authorized under Section 3(b) (2) of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (1971 WFRHBA) and Section 302(b) of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976.(FLMPA DOES NOT APPLY HERE! PERSUANT TO FLMPA SEC< 302(a))MANAGEMENT OF USE, OCCUPANCY, AND DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 302. [43 U.S.C. 1732] (a) The Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield, in accordance with the land use plans developed by him under section 202 of this Act when they are available, except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with such law.Therefore, NO SECTION of the FLPMA does apply to historic wh&B ranges, even "(b)" as the EA is claiming here, the need to gather these herds allegedly to comply with sec. (b" of FLPMA; .. In managing the public lands, the Secretary shall, subject to this Act and other applicable law and under such terms and conditions as are consistent with such law, regulate, through easements, permits, leases, licenses, published rules, or other instruments as the Secretary deems appropriate, the use, occupancy, and development of the public lands, including, but not limited to, long-term leases to permit individuals to utilize public lands for habitation, cultivation, and the development of small trade or manufacturing concerns: Provided, That unless otherwise provided for by law, the Secretary may permit Federal departments and agencies to use, occupy, and develop public lands only through rights-of-way under section 507 of this Act, withdrawals under section 204 of this Act, and, where the proposed use and development are similar or closely related to the programs of the Secretary for the public lands involved, cooperative agreements under subsection (b) of section 307 of this Act: Provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary concerned to require Federal permits to hunt and fish on public lands or on lands in the National Forest System and adjacent waters or as Public Law 94–579—Oct. 21, 1976, as amended through May 7, 2001 ———— 21
enlarging or diminishing the responsibility and authority of the States for management of fish and resident wildlife. However, the Secretary concerned may designate areas of public land and of lands in the National Forest System where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing will be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance with provisions of applicable law. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary concerned relating to hunting and fishing pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State fish and game department. Nothing in this Act shall modify or change any provision of Federal law relating to migratory birds or to endangered or threatened species. Except as provided in section 314, section 603, and subsection (f) of section 601 of this Act and in the last sentence of this paragraph, no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress. In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.
EA Con't:
If the gather efficiency is sufficient (i.e., more than 2,523 horses are gathered), fertility control and adjustment of the sex ratio to favor males through the selection of release horses would be applied to decrease the annual population growth.
Population modeling (Appendix C-Graph 1) shows that at 80% gather efficiency (i.e., 80% of the estimated population of 3,095 or 2,476 horses gathered) not enough wild horses could be gathered to implement fertility control or release horses back into the herds and achieve the low range AML. However, if the gather efficiency is 90% (i.e., 90% of the estimated population of 3,095 or 2,787 horses gathered), then some selective removal and fertility treatment could occur (Appendix C-Graph 2) and the low range AML be achieved. The gather would also benefit the health of wild horses remaining in the Complex by reducing competition for forage and water. (IF YOU REALLY WANT TO REDUCE COMPETITION-GET RID OF THE COWS-AS THE LAW STATES YOU SHOULD!)
Implementation of the Proposed Action is needed at this time to prevent deterioration of animal health and reduce impacts to rangeland and wildlife resources from overgrazing by wild horses.(to hell w/the wildlife too! These lands ARE statutoriley designated for use PRINCIPALLY for wild equines!)
This gather would reduce the current wild horse population to the established appropriate management levels (OH, U MEAN THE AMLS SET WAAAY BACK IN THE 1980s?)to protect horse health and sustainability, support significant progress toward achievement of the Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Standards for Rangeland Health; (MUST LOOK INTO THAT AS IT SOUNDS STRANGELY FAMILIAR TO THE MOJAVE-GREAT BASIN RMP WHERE THE PLAN WAS FOR DEVELOPMENT TO TAKE PLACE AFTER THE WILD ONES WERE ALL GONE)and, move toward a thriving natural ecological balance between wild horse populations, wildlife, vegetation, riparian-wetland resources, water resources, and domestic livestock.(THERE IS NO "BALANCE" REQUIRMENT UNDER THE FLMPA (302(A) EXCEPTION AS THE WFHBA MANDATES THAT THE WILD EQUINES HAVE PRINCIPAL USE OF THE LAND....if there truely isnt enough forage for all, the law mandates that the cows go first in wild horse country and that under no circumstances should the horses go first!)/
1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance
The Proposed Action and other alternatives considered are in conformance with the Record of Decisions (RODs) for the Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Resource Area Management Framework Plans (MFPs) approved on July 9th, 1982. (DONT WE THINK ITS TIME FOR A NEW ONE?)Applicable decisions and goals are: to manage sustainable populations of wild horses, maintain a thriving ecological balance, (AGAIN,....there IS NO "BALANCE" requirment for lands statutorily designated PRINCIPALLY for wild equine use!Traditional Wild Horse lands are exempt from this FLMPA requirement)and to maintain free-roaming behavior.
The Proposed Action is also in conformance with the July 2004 ROD for the Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA Resource Management Plan (RMP).
Applicable decisions are:
WHB-1: Retain referenced HMAs (Black Rock Range East, Black Rock Range West, Calico Mountains, Warm Springs Canyon, and Granite Range) and manage wild horse or burro populations consistent with plan objectives.
WHB-3: Contiguous HMAs with documented reproductive interaction will be managed as complexes to enable better management of genetic traits for the population and to improve coordination of monitoring and gathering.
WHB-5: Horses and burros will be gathered from the HMAs to maintain horses and burros within the AML as funding permits. Aircraft will continue to be used for the management and, when necessary, removal of wild horses and burros. Gather activities will be scheduled to avoid high visitor use periods whenever possible.
WHB-6: Gathers in Wilderness will continue to be conducted by herding the animals by helicopter or on horseback to temporary corrals, generally located outside of Wilderness. No landing of aircraft will occur in Wilderness Areas except for emergency purposes, and no motorized vehicles will be used in Wilderness in association with the gather operations unless such use was consistent with the minimum tool requirement for management of Wilderness.
1.4 Relationship to Laws, Regulations, and Other Plans
Statutes and Regulations
The Proposed Action and other action alternatives are in conformance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (PL 92-195, as amended) and applicable regulations at 43 CFR 4700 and policies. Included are:
43 CFR 4710.4: Management of wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with limiting the animals’ distribution to herd areas. Management shall be at the minimum feasible level necessary to attain the objectives identified in approved land use plans and herd management area plans.
43 CFR 4720.1: Upon examination of current (OUTDATED)information and a determination by the authorized officer that an excess of wild horses or burros exists, the authorized officer shall remove the excess animals immediately.
Other Plans
The Proposed Action and other action alternatives are in conformance with Biological Opinions and Recovery Plans for Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species, including:
Biological Opinion for the 2003 through 2013 Livestock grazing System for the Soldier Meadows Allotment, Humboldt County, Nevada, August 14, 2003.
Biological Opinion for the 2003 through 2013 Livestock Grazing System for the Paiute Meadows Allotment, Humboldt County, Nevada, June 13, 2003.
Recovery Plan for the Rare Species of Soldier Meadows, 1997.
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan, 1995.
The AML is established as a population range of 586-976 wild horses and burros (Table 1). Allocations of available forage to wildlife, domestic livestock and wild horses or burros within the Complex were made following in-depth analysis of resource monitoring data and issuance of Final Multiple Use Decisions (FMUDs). Any adjustments to initial AMLs established in FMUDs were made pending further in-depth site-specific environmental analysis and decision issuance.(AND WHEN IS THAT TO OCCUR? IN OUR LIFETIMES?)
Table 1: Calico Mountains Complex - AML Establishment Summary
HMA
Allotment
Decision Type/Date
AML
Black Rock Range East
Soldier Meadows
Pine Forest
FMUD – 1/24/94
FMUD – 09/30/05
56-93 H
0
Black Rock Range West
Soldier Meadows
FMUD – 1/24/94
EA# NV-020-00-27
56-93 H
Calico Mountains
Buffalo Hills
Leadville
Soldier Meadows
FMUD – 2/9/93
FMUD – 1/19/94
FMUD – 1/24/94
EA# NV-020-03-09
200-333 H
Granite Range
Buffalo Hills
FMUD – 2/9/93
EA# NV-020-05-02
155-285 H
6
HMA
Allotment
Decision Type/Date
AML
Warm Springs Canyon
Soldier Meadows
FMUD – 1/24/94
EA# NV-020-03-09
105-175 H; 14-24 B
TOTAL
586-976
1.5 Conformance with Land Health Standards
HMAs within the Complex has not been assessed for conformance with Standards for Rangeland Health as developed in consultation with the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC). However, some riparian assessments have been conducted prior to 2003. (WELL WHAT HAS BLM BEEN DOING SINCE 2003? TOO BUSY ROUNDING UP WILD HORSES TO UPDATE YER RECORDS?)Utilization monitoring and trend data indicates excess wild horse use is contributing to the Riparian/Wetland and Plant and Animal Habitat Standards not being met. (THERE CAN BE NO EXCESS WILD ONES WHILE COWS STILL OUTNUMBER THEM ON THEIR TRADITIONAL RANGES!)The Proposed Action is consistent with making significant progress towards or meeting Rangeland Health Standards and conforms to the recommendations presented in the March 2007 Standards and Guidelines for Management of Wild Horses and Burros of the Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Area.
1.6 Decision to be Made
Under the 1971 WFRHBA, the authorized officer has the authority to determine whether appropriate management levels (AMLs) should be achieved by the removal of excess animals, or other options (such as sterilization or natural controls on population levels). Consistent with this authority, the authorized officer will select the population control method(s) to be implemented beginning in about December 2009 to achieve and maintain a healthy wild horse population within the appropriate management level that is in balance with the productive capacity of the habitat and other multiple uses.(MULTIPLE USE UPON TRADITIONAL WH&B LANDS IS ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHER USES OF THE LAND MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PRINCIPAL USE BY THE HORSES)
------------------------------CON'T HERE
Scoping and Identification of Issues
Issues identified during routine business conducted with Resource Advisory Councils, Nevada Department of Wildlife, US Fish & Wildlife Service, livestock operators and others, underscores the need for BLM to maintain wild horse and burro populations within the appropriate management level (AML). Consultation between the BLM, State of Nevada Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses and the Sierra Club was conducted in November 2008. These groups toured the area proposed for the gather and jointly concurred that the gather was needed. The conclusion of the group was that the gather was needed to protect the natural resources as well as the wild horses.
The following issues have been identified:
1. A need to implement different or additional population control methods in order to maintain population size within AML over the long-term. Measurement indicators for this issue include:
Projected average annual growth rate/expected effectiveness of proposed population control methods (WinEquus population modeling);
Projected gather frequency;
Projected number of excess animals to be removed and placed in the adoption, sale, and short or long term holding pipelines over the next 10 years.
7
2. Impacts to vegetation/soils, riparian/wetland, and cultural resources. Measurement indicators for this issue include:
Expected forage utilization;
Potential impacts to vegetation/soils and riparian/wetland resources.
3. Impacts to wildlife, migratory birds, and threatened, endangered and special status species and their habitat. Measurement indicators for this issue include:
Potential for short-term displacement, trampling or disturbance;
Potential competition for forage and water over time.
4. Impacts to individual wild horses and the herd. Measurement indicators for this issue include:
Potential impacts to animal health and condition;
Expected impacts to individual wild horses and herd social structure from future gather operations (handling stress);
Potential effects to genetic diversity.
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
This section of the EA describes the Proposed Action and alternatives, including any that were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. Alternatives analyzed in detail include the following:
Alternative 1: Proposed Action: Removal, Fertility Control, & 60% Male Sex Ratio
Alternative 2: Removal Only
Alternative 3: No Action – Defer Gather and Removal
The action alternatives were developed to meet the Purpose and Need and respond to the identified issues. Few management options exist as the current wild horse population is so far over AML that it is not expected that enough horses can be gathered to implement management actions such as fertility control or adjusting the sex ratio. However, fertility control and sex ratio adjustments would occur if there is an opportunity to do so. The action alternatives are designed to meet the need to remove excess wild horses in order to protect the range from deterioration associated with overpopulation. Although the No Action alternative does not comply with the 1971 WFRHBA (as amended), nor does it meet the purpose and need for action, it is included as a basis for comparison with the action alternatives.
2.1 Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail
2.1.1 Management Actions Common to Alternatives 1-2
The wild horse gather would be scheduled to occur beginning in December 2009 and would be expected to take approximately three months to complete. Several factors such as animal
8
condition, herd health, weather conditions, or other considerations could result in adjustments to the schedule.
Gather operations would be conducted in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) described in the National Wild Horse Gather Contract. Appendix A outlines the SOPs currently in effect. The primary gather (capture) methods would be the helicopter drive method and helicopter assisted roping (from horseback).
Gather operations in wilderness areas would be conducted by herding the animals by helicopter or on horseback to temporary corrals, generally located outside wilderness boundary. No landing of aircraft would occur in Wilderness Areas except for emergency purposes, and no motorized vehicles would be used in Wilderness in association with the gather operation unless such use is consistent with the minimum requirements for management of Wilderness and is preapproved by the authorized officer.
Trap sites and holding facilities would be located in previously used trap sites and other disturbed areas (Map 1). Undisturbed areas identified as potential trap sites or holding facilities would be inventoried for cultural resources. If cultural resources are encountered, these locations would not be utilized unless they could be modified to avoid impacts to cultural resources. Trap sites and holding facilities would not be placed in known areas of Native American concern.
Gathers activities would be scheduled to avoid high visitor use periods whenever possible.
Data including sex and age distribution, reproduction, body condition class information (using the Henneke rating system), color, size and other information may also be recorded, along with the disposition of that animal (removed or released).
Hair samples would be acquired on about 25-50 animals from each HMA to determine whether acceptable genetic diversity is being maintained (avoid inbreeding depression).
An Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) or other licensed veterinarian may be on-site, as needed, to examine animals and make recommendations to BLM for care and treatment of wild horses.
Decisions to humanely euthanize animals in field situations would be made in conformance with BLM policy (Washington Office Instruction Memorandum). Current policy reference: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-041.html.
Excess animals would be sent to Bureau facilities for adoption, sale, or long-term holding.
Noxious weed monitoring at trap sites and temporary holding facilities would be conducted in the spring and summer of 2010 by BLM. Treatment would be provided, if necessary, following guidance from the Noxious Weed Control EA# NV-020-02-19.
9
Existing monitoring including: forage condition and utilization, water availability, aerial population surveys and animal health would continue.
A comprehensive post-gather aerial population survey would occur within 12 months following completion of the gather operation.
2.1.2 Alternative 1. Proposed Action: Removal, Fertility Control & 60% Male Sex Ratio
In addition to the actions described in Section 2.1.1, the Complex would be managed within a range of 572-952 wild horses and 14-24 wild burros as follows:
• 2,476 (80%) to 2,787 (90%) wild horses of the total estimated wild horse population (3,095 head) would be captured, up to 264 head (80 treated mares and 184 studs) would be released back onto the range, and 2,476 to 2,523 excess wild horses would be removed from the range to achieve the low range AML.
If the gather efficiency exceeds 80% (2,476 head) then the following management actions would be implemented to the degree possible while still achieving the low range AML:
• Mares selected for release, including those previously treated with fertility control, would be treated/retreated with a two-year Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP-22) or similar vaccine and released back to the range. Immuno-contraceptive research would be conducted in accordance with the approved standard operating and post-treatment monitoring procedures (SOPs, Appendix B). Mares would be selected to maintain a diverse age structure, herd characteristics and conformation.
• Studs selected for release would be released to increase the post-gather sex ratio to approximately 60% studs in the remaining herds. Studs would be selected to maintain a diverse age structure, herd characteristics and conformation.
• Animals would be removed using a selective removal strategy to the extent possible. Selective removal criteria include:
(1) First Priority: Age Class - Five Years and Younger
(2) Second Priority: Age Class - Six to Fifteen Years Old
(3) Third Priority: Age Class Sixteen Years and Older
• Post-gather, every effort would be made to return released horses to the same general area from which they were gathered.
2.1.3 Alternative 2. Removal Only
In addition to the actions described in Section 2.1.1, the Complex would be managed as a range of 572-952 wild horses and 14-24 wild burros as follows:
• 2,476 (80%) to 2,523 (82%) wild horses of the total estimated wild horse population (3,095 head) would be captured and 2,476 to 2,523 excess wild horses would be removed. To achieve the low range AML, a minimum of 2,523 horses would need to be removed.
10
• A post-gather sex ratio of approximately 45-50% studs/50-55% mares would be maintained.
2.1.4 Alternative 3. No Action. Defer Gather and Removal
Under the No Action Alternative, the capture and removal of approximately 2,523 excess wild horses would not occur within the next year. There would be no additional management actions undertaken to control the size of the wild horse populations at this time.
2.1.5 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
Use of Bait and/or Water Trapping
An alternative considered but dismissed from detailed analysis was use of bait and/or water trapping as the primary gather method. This alternative was dismissed from detailed study for the following reasons: (1) the size of the area is too large to use this method and water is available from multiple area; (2) outside the HMA boundary, a large number of water sources are present on both private and public lands which would make it impractical to restrict wild horse access and effectively remove the animals without extending the time required to remove the horses. The expanded area and the extended time would result in an increase in gather cost.
Gather Every Two Years and Apply Two-Year PZP
Another alternative would be to gather the Complex wild horses every two years and apply two-year PZP (PZP-22) to breeding age mares. However, due to the size of the area and the complexity involved in gathering the wild horse population, and given that other reasonable management options exist, this alternative was dropped from detailed study.
Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives Considered in Detail
Item
Proposed Action
(80% GE)
Proposed Action
(90% GE)
Alternative 2
No Action Alternative
Impacts to Wild Horses
Number of Horses Captured in Complex
2,476
2,787
2,476 - 2,523
0
Number of Horses Removed from Complex
2,476
2,523
2,476 – 2,523
0
Number of Horses Released back to Complex
0
up to 264
0
0
PZP Applied
No
Yes
No
No
Post-Gather Sex Ratio (approx)
45-50/50-55
males/females
50-60/40-50
males/females
45-50/50-55
males/females
45-50/50-55
males/females
11
Item
Proposed Action
(80% GE)
Proposed Action
(90% GE)
Alternative 2
No Action Alternative
Post-Gather Horse Population
An estimated post-gather population of approximately 572 – 619 wild horses (.e. low range of AML) would remain under the action alternatives if a minimum gather efficiency of 80% is achieved and the pre-gather population estimate of 3,095 head is accurate.
A post-gather aerial population survey flight would occur within 12 months to verify the post-gather estimate.
The current population of 3,095 animals would be expected to grow to 3,807 animals following the 2010 foaling season.
3.0 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section of the EA briefly discusses the relevant components of the human environment which would be either affected or potentially affected by the Action Alternatives or No Action (refer to Tables 3 and 4 below). Direct impacts are those that result from the management actions while indirect impacts are those that exist once the management action has occurred.
3.1 General Description of the Affected Environment
The Complex comprises a total of about 542,100 HMA acres and is considered the primary gather area. It includes the Granite Range, Calico Mountains, Trough Mountain and Black Rock Range topographic features. It is bound on the east by the Black Rock Desert, on the north by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Sheldon Antelope Refuge, on the west by adjacent HMAs administered by the Surprise Field Office in Cedarville, California and by the small town of Gerlach, Nevada on the south. However, due to wild horse movement outside of the Complex, the potential gather area may include additional areas outside the HMAs (see Map 1).
Elevations within the Complex range from 3,920 along the Black Rock Desert to 9,056 feet at Granite Peak. Climate within the Complex is characterized by warm dry days, cool nights and low yearly precipitation that range from 4 at lower elevations to approximately 16 inches at higher elevations. Most precipitation occurs as winter snow.
Vegetation varies from salt desert shrub communities at lower elevations to big sagebrush/bunch grass communities at higher elevations. Typical species at lower elevations include shadscale, bud sage, winterfat, black greasewood, squirreltail, and Sandberg’s bluegrass. Species typical in higher elevations include low sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, Utah juniper, mountain mahogany, quaking aspen, needlegrass, blue bunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, squirreltail, Indian paintbrush, and phlox. Historic wildfire scars occur throughout some portions of the Complex and mainly support cheat grass.
Numerous small perennial streams and springs occur throughout the Complex. The Calico Mountains, Warm Springs Canyon, and south Black Rock Range HMAs are most water limited due to scarcity of sites and low flows (photo 5). Livestock water developments (e.g., wells, troughs and dirt reservoirs) are important sources of water (photo 6) for wild horses as well.
12
Photo 5. Low flows and heavy wild horse use at Leadville meadow, Calico Mountains HMA, 8/08
Photo 6. Low spring flows at Jacob’s spring trough, Warm Springs Canyon HMA, 7/09
3.2 Supplemental Authorities (Critical Environmental Elements of the Human Environment)
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the following elements of the human environment are subject to requirements specified in statute, regulation or executive order and must be considered.
Table 3: Supplemental Authorities (Critical Elements of the Human Environment)
CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Present
Affected
Rationale
Air Quality
YES
NO
The proposed gather area is not within an area of non-attainment or areas where total suspended particulates exceed Nevada air quality standards. Areas of disturbance would be small and temporary.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC’s)
NO
NO
Not present.
Cultural Resources
YES
YES
Trap sites and/or holding corrals would be placed in disturbed areas or inventoried prior to use. Locations would avoid cultural resource sites. However, other potential impacts are discussed below.
Environmental
NO
NO
Not present.
13
CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Present
Affected
Rationale
Justice
Floodplains
NO
NO
Resource not present.
Invasive, Nonnative Species
YES
NO
Any noxious weeds or non-native invasive weeds would be avoided when establishing trap and/or holding facilities, and would not be driven through. Noxious weed monitoring at trap/holding sites would be conducted and applicable treatment of weeds would occur per Noxious Weed Control EA#NV-020-02-19 as needed.
Migratory Birds
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Native American Religious Concerns
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Prime or Unique Farmlands
NO
NO
Resource not present.
Threatened & Endangered Species
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wastes, Hazardous or Solid
NO
NO
Not present.
Water Quality (Surface/Ground)
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wetlands and Riparian Zones
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
NO
NO
Resource not present.
Wilderness
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Critical elements identified as present and potentially affected by the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 1-2) and/or the No Action Alternative include: Cultural Resources, Migratory Birds, Native American Religious Concerns, Threatened & Endangered Species, Water Quality,
14
Wetlands and Riparian Zones, and Wilderness. Additional discussion is included in the following sections.
3.2.1 Cultural Resources
A complete inventory of archeological sites in the Complex has not been completed; the gather area covers a wide area and includes a diversity of cultural resources from different time periods. Previous inventories have identified pre-historic sites (rock art sites, lithic scatters, isolated projectile points, etc.) in the area. Two of the gather areas are near some of the oldest recorded archaeological sites in the District, near extinct Lake Parman. The highest concentration of prehistoric sites is in association with permanent and intermittent water sources. There are several gather sites near Soldier Meadows, which is rich in both prehistoric and historic resources. Historic sites associated with ranching and mining are known to occur in this area as well. Segments of both the 1852 Nobles Route, a cutoff from the Applegate-Lassen Trail, and the Applegate-Lassen Trail itself (a National Historic Trail) pass near some of the gather sites. These trails were some of the most heavily traveled wagon routes for nineteenth century emigrants to California and Oregon.
3.2.2 Migratory Birds
Neo-tropical migrant bird species are those species that breed in the temperate portions of North America and winter in the tropics in either North or South America. They are protected by international treaty and additional emphasis on maintaining or improving their habitats is provided by Executive Order #13186. Within the Great Basin and the project area, quality riparian habitats and healthy sagebrush communities with inclusions of trees and shrubs are required for healthy neo-tropical migrants' populations. A migratory bird inventory has not been completed for the entire Complex. One point count transect has been set up on and adjacent to aspen habitats within the Stanley Camp Riparian pasture. The habitats sampled within the riparian pasture are not representative of the vast majority of horse habitats within the Complex. Migratory birds observed on the nearby point count transect outside the Complex but in similar environments include: black-throated sparrow, rock wren, sage sparrow, Western meadowlark, horned lark, Say’s phoebe, lark sparrow, violet-green swallow, tree swallow, Bullock’s oriole, and black-billed magpie. Other possible inhabitants of this habitat include Brewer’s blackbird, Brewer’s sparrow, burrowing owl, canyon wren, gray flycatcher, green-tailed towhee, loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, and vesper sparrow (Great Basin Bird Observatory, 2003). The burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and vesper sparrow are BLM designated sensitive species and are discussed in section 3.3.3.
3.2.3 Native American Religious Concerns
The proposed action is within the traditional territory of the kamodökadö (“jack-rabbit eaters”), the atsakudöka tuviwarai (“red butte dwellers”), and the aga’ ipañinadökadö (“fish lake eaters”) or madökadö (“wild onion eaters”) bands of Northern Paiute peoples. These bands are identified with modern groups that include the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the Fort McDermitt Tribe, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the Susanville Indian Rancheria. There are no known traditional cultural properties or sacred sites in the capture areas. However, water sources are considered sacred by Native American tribes and riparian zones, in particular, are rich sources of plants for medicinal and other uses.
15
3.2.4 Threatened & Endangered Species
A list of federally listed, proposed or candidate species was requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the proposed project area (2009). The Fish and Wildlife Service responded that the following species may be found within the proposed project area: 1) Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi, LCT) as a threatened species, 2) Desert Dace (Eremichthys across) as a threatened species, 3) Elongate mud meadows springsnail (Pyrugulopsis notidicola) as a candidate species, and 4) Soldier Meadow cinquefoil (Potentilla basaltica) as a candidate species. There are no other known Threatened or Endangered Species in the proposed project area.
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout - Several streams within the Proposed Calico Complex Wild Horse Capture Area support existing populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi, LCT). LCT is a federally listed Threatened species since 1975 (Federal Register Vol. 40, p. 29864). Mahogany, Summer Camp, Snow, and Colman creeks exist entirely within the Soldier Meadows Allotment and currently are occupied by LCT. North Fork Battle Creek exists within the Paiute Meadows Allotment and is currently occupied by LCT.
Several streams within the Proposed Calico Complex Wild Horse Capture Area have been identified as priority streams for LCT recovery in the 1995 USFWS LCT Recovery Plan and the 1999 NDOW Species Management Plan for LCT. The streams identified are as follows: Donnelly Creek (Soldier Meadows Allotment); Bartlett and Paiute creeks (Paiute Meadows Allotment); Cottonwood, Granite, Red Mountain, and Rock creeks (Buffalo Hills Allotment). There is currently no known LCT within these streams.
Desert Dace - The hot springs and their outflows to the south and west of the Soldier Meadows Ranch are the only known habitats for the desert dace (Eremichthys across). The desert dace has been federally listed as Threatened since 1985 (Federal Register Volume 50, p. 50304,) and is the only member of the genus, Eremichthys. At the time of listing, critical habitat was also listed, that encompasses 50 feet on each side of designated thermal springs and their outflow streams (USFWS 1997). The desert dace occupied habitat was fenced off in 2005 and the potential trap/holding sites are outside of the fenced area. For this reason, the proposed activities are judged to have no impact on this species or its habitats and will be dismissed from further analysis.
Elongate mud meadows springsnail – Numerous spring systems exist within the Hot Springs Area of the Soldier Meadows area, which range from cold (near or below mean air temperature), thermal (5-10o C above mean air temperature), or hot (more than 10o C above mean air temperature) (see Sada et al. 2001). Within the SMA several springsnails, which are small (1-8 mm high) mollusks that require high quality water (Sada et al. 2001), have been identified as being unique to the area. The majority of these species are members of the genus Prygulopsis, with one species belonging to the genus Fluminicola. These genera prefer cool, flowing water and gravel substrate (Sada et al. 2001). One species, the elongate mud meadows pryg is listed by the USFWS as a candidate species for protection under the ESA. The primary areas of known springsnail concentrations on public lands occur in the vicinity of the desert dace critical habitats that were fenced to exclude livestock and wild horses in 2005. The proposed action is outside the fenced area for the species, and therefore there is no impact on the springsnail species or its habitats and will be dismissed from further analysis.
16
Soldier Meadow cinquefoil – Potentilla basaltica is an herbaceous perennial plant that grows primarily in the Soldier Meadows area. It is currently listed by the USFWS as a candidate for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register Vol. 67, p. 40662). The plant grows from prostrate stems extending from a low basal rosette. Bright yellow flowers occur in loose clusters at the end of the stems. The species blooms from late spring and summer. The species is associated with moist saline/alkaline soils associated with alkali seeps and meadows. The species appears to favor sites with micro-relief in saturated soils to obtain root aeration. Surveys completed by Nachlinger in 1990 and repeated by FWS in 2002 and BLM in 2009 indicate stable to increasing populations. Most potential habitat is occupied, except where vehicle trails cross through small areas of otherwise suitable habitat. The current threats are associated with recreation use of occupied habitat. Basalt cinquefoil also exhibits the ability to colonize previously disturbed areas, including old livestock corrals and the raised rim of hoof prints in wet soils. All documented populations within the project area are outside designated HMAs and within exclosures constructed in part to eliminate wild horse impacts on the species. For this reason, the proposed activities are judged to have no impact on this species or its habitats and will be dismissed from further analysis.
3.2.5 Water Quality (Surface and Ground)
Most of the springs are associated with or located along the stream channels. No water quality data has been collected within the Complex; however, the water quality is expected to be of good quality for these springs and streams. Isolated springs and catchments are expected to have fair to poor water quality with elevated levels of nitrates and fecal coliform in areas of concentrated wild horse use. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has not listed any of the water bodies within the allotment on the State of Nevada List of Impaired Water Bodies (Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act).
Photo 7. Summit Spring, Black Rock Range West HMA, low spring flows, 10/08.
Photo 8. Burnt Spring, heavy riparian utilization, Black Rock Range East HMA, 10/08
17
Photo 9. Meadow with headcuts and heavy wild horse utilization, Black Rock Range, 10/08.
Photo 10. Little water of poor quality in small dirt catchment, Calico Mountains HMA, 8/08.
3.2.6 Wetlands and Riparian Zones
Riparian areas are limited within the Complex and are generally associated with small streams, springs and seeps. Riparian sites within the Complex have been recently assessed for riparian functionality. The majority of sites are classified as “functioning at risk.” Riparian sites are heavily utilized especially when the water flow is low and water availability is limited during droughts (photo 7). Observations of meadows associated with springs show severe utilization of meadows, residual stubble heights of less than two inches and active erosion of meadow soils due to trampling (photos 8-9). Numerous dirt catchments exist, but water availability is dependent on seasonal water or storm events and water quality degrades with heavy use (photo 10).
3.2.7 Wilderness
The project area includes all or portions of the East Fork High Rock Canyon, High Rock Lake, North Black Rock Range, Pahute Peak, and the Black Rock Desert Wilderness Areas. These wilderness areas were designated by the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon-Emigrant Trails National Conservation Act of 2000 (Refer to Map 1). The Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates that wilderness areas be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as would leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. The Wilderness Act mandates that wilderness areas be managed in such a manner as to maintain or enhance the values of naturalness, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation, and any special features found in the areas. Several special features were specifically mentioned for the affected Wilderness Areas in the BRHR NCA Act of 2000. They include; wagon ruts, historic inscriptions, prehistoric and historic Native American sites, large natural potholes, threatened fish and sensitive plants, and a largely untouched emigrant trail viewshed.
3.3 Additional Affected Resources
In addition to the critical elements above, the following resources may be affected by the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 1-2) and/or the No Action Alternative: livestock management,
18
sensitive and/or special status species, soils, vegetation, wild horses, wildlife, and wilderness study areas.
Table 4: Other Resources Checklist
OTHER RESOURCES
Present
Affected
Rationale
Fisheries
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Rangeland Management
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Special Status Species
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Soils
YES
YES
Soil disturbances would be less than 1 acre in size and trap sites would be located in previously disturbed areas. Discussed further under vegetation.
Vegetation
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wild Horses
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wilderness Study Area
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wildlife
YES
YES
Discussed below.
3.3.1 Fisheries
Several of the streams in the proposed project area currently contain salmonid species. The streams with salmonids that have not been discussed in section 3.2.4 are Bartlett Creek, Granite Creek, and Red Mountain Creek. These streams include a variety of salmonids, including: rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
3.3.2 Rangeland Management
Buffalo Hills, Leadville, Paiute Meadows, and Soldier Meadows allotments occur within the Complex and are currently permitted for livestock use as identified in Table 2. Livestock use generally occurs between April 1 and October 30, although it may occur throughout the year.
19
Table 5: Permitted Livestock use in the Calico Mountains Complex
Allotment
Permitted Use
Season of Use
Buffalo Hills
639 Cattle
4/1 – 10/15
Leadville
235 Cattle
5/1 - 10/15
Paiute Meadows
524 Cattle
300 Cattle
3/15 – 5/15
11/1 – 1/15
Soldier Meadows
800 Cattle
1/16 - 12/15
3.3.3 Soils
The occurrence of bare soil is high with deep soil churning, heavy trailing and active erosion due to the lack of vegetation and hoof actions. The majority of soils in these HMA’s were developed under low precipitation with minimal topsoil development. All soil types are subject to water and wind erosion. With the excessive trailing and hoof action this area has the potential of accelerated erosion following intense storms or snow melt. Potential water erosion hazard for the trap sites is slight and potential wind erosion hazard is moderate. Soil surface disturbance due to hoof action and vehicle use would be limited to trap sites.
3.3.4 Special Status Species
Both Threatened and Endangered Species (addressed in 3.2.4) and Sensitive Species (addressed below) are considered Special Status Species. No on-the-ground field investigation was conducted for sensitive/protected plant, or animal species including birds. However, the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) database (March, 2008) and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) Diversity database (August, 2007) were consulted for the possible presence of endangered, threatened, candidate and/or sensitive plants or animal species. NDOW data show observances of golden eagle, prairie falcon, northern goshawk, and burrowing owl within the Complex. The NNHP database showed no observances of Special Status Species within the Complex.
Sensitive Species
The following designated Bureau of Land Management sensitive animal or plant species are described as they have either been seen in the Complex or the area contains habitat characteristics conducive to these species.
Bats
Several species of bats may occur in this area. Most bats in Nevada are year-round residents. In general terms, bats eat insects and arthropods during the warmer seasons and hibernate in underground structures during the cooler seasons. Bats commonly roost in caves, mines, outcrops, buildings, trees and under bridges. Bats may eat flies, moths, beetles, ants, scorpions, centipedes, grasshoppers, and crickets. Bats thrive where the plant communities are healthy enough to support a large population of prey (Bradley et al 2006).
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owls are known to occur within this area. Burrowing owls prefer open, arid, treeless landscapes with low vegetation. They are dependent upon burrowing mammal populations for maintenance of nest habitat and choose nesting areas based on burrow availability (Floyd et al
20
2007). These birds are highly adaptable and readily nest in open disturbed areas such as golf courses, runways, and industrial areas that border suitable habitat (Neel, 1999). Dense stands of grasses and forbs within owl home ranges support populations of rodent and insect prey. Urbanization is the biggest threat to this species as suitable habitat is converted to non-habitat for human use (Floyd et al 2007).
Greater Sage-grouse
Greater sage-grouse is a BLM sensitive species. The Complex contains 103,145 acres of key sage-grouse habitat. Key habitat is designated for those areas that support all the habitat requirements to support sage-grouse populations. Four active leks have been identified within the HMA with two additional leks with historic use. Leks are communal breeding ground for sage-grouse and are commonly considered to be the center of nesting activity. Sage-grouse require large expanses of sagebrush with good under stories of forbs and grasses. Sagebrush provides nesting and hiding cover and forage for much of the year. Forbs provide spring nutrition and grasses provide visual screening for nests. Additionally wet meadows are needed to provide green forbs when other sites dry out, water and insects for the chicks during the hot summer months.
Pygmy Rabbit
In the Great Basin, the pygmy rabbit is typically restricted to the stands of tall sagebrush on deep loamy soils. There has been no inventory for pygmy rabbits in this area so their presence is unknown. Surveys have been completed to the north and west of the Complex during 2005 and 2006. No rabbits or signs of their occupation were observed (Larrucea, 2007).
Raptors
Golden eagle, prairie falcon, and northern goshawk have been observed in the Complex. Golden eagles are primarily cliff nesters and would utilize the area to forage for prey species such as jackrabbits and other small mammals. Golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Nevada’s Golden eagle population is thought to be stable to increasing. They are widespread and frequently encountered (Floyd et al 2007).
The prairie falcon may be found foraging in sagebrush habitats that have cliffs in close proximity for nesting. They prey on small mammals and birds, especially horned lark. Populations experienced declines in the 60’s and 70’s but appear to be stable now in the West (Paige and Ritter 1999).
The Northern goshawk is a forest hawk inhabiting coniferous and aspen forests. One sighting was reported in the Complex in the month of October. This individual would have been migrating to a winter area and not occupying the area for any length of time. No nesting, breeding, or foraging habitat exists within the Complex.
Vesper Sparrow
The vesper sparrow may be found in this area since it typically inhabits sagebrush-grass vegetative communities at the higher elevations. The vesper sparrow forages on the ground and eats mostly seeds from grasses and forbs and will also eat insects when they are available. The vesper sparrow responds negatively to heavy grazing in sagebrush/grasslands. In these habitats, it
21
benefits from open areas with scattered shrubs and a cover of good bunchgrasses for nest concealment, since it is a ground nester (Paige and Ritter 1999).
Basalt cinquefoil
Basalt cinquefoil, a BLM sensitive species, is found around the hot springs located in the Soldier Meadows allotment near the ranch headquarters, but outside of any HMA.
3.3.5 Vegetation
Vegetation varies from salt desert shrub communities at lower elevations to big sagebrush/bunch grass communities at higher elevations. Typical species at lower elevations include shadscale, bud sage, winterfat, black greasewood, squirreltail, and Sandberg’s bluegrass. Species typical in higher elevations include low sage, Lahontan sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, Utah juniper, needlegrass, blue bunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, squirreltail, Indian paintbrush, and phlox.
Site visits were conducted in late August and mid-November. Where grasses are accessible, utilization is estimated between 40 to 90 percent throughout the HMA with the majority of plants showing utilization of 60-80% (photo 7). There is evidence of horses traversing extremely rocky slopes in search of grasses. Much of the bitterbrush and other palatable browse species throughout the HMA, but especially in areas near waters, are decadent (photo 8) or dead (some known moth kill) and other plants show low production and moderate to heavy hedging, with the majority of plants and leaders browsed.
Photo 11. Heavy utilization, basin wildrye, 8/08.
Photo 12. Decadent browse species, 8/08.
Utilization of new plant growth on the area burned (about 1,000 acres) by the Tin Canyon Fire in 2002 is heavy to severe (photos 9-10)
22
Photo 13. Burned/unburned vegetation and bare soil contrast, 8/08.
Photo 14. Wild rose growing through deep churned soils in burn area, 8/08.
3.3.6 Wild Horses
Historical evidence indicates that the American westward expansion of explorers, settlers, cavalry, miners, farmers, and ranchers in the mid-1800s was the source of present day wild horses and burros in this area. The vast number of settlers entering the Great Basin, especially livestock operators, caused many changes to the native cold desert environment including water developments, supplemental livestock feeding, and farm crops. This enhanced the basic habitat elements for horse survival. Loss of stock, abandonment, and intentional horse breeding all contributed to the establishment of mustangs in this area.
The Complex is managed for an AML range of 572-952 wild horses and 14-24 burros. The current estimated population of 3,095 wild horses is based on modeling and confirmed by recent aerial census. Direct observation counts from the flight were projected using historic annual growth rates for each HMA (20-27%) and include this year’s foal crop. The current population is about 5.5 times the low range of the AML (572 head) or about three times over the carrying capacity or high range AML of 952 head.
Table 6 displays the estimated wild horse and burro populations by HMA and the AML range for each HMA. The population estimate is based on population modeling and confirmed with a 2009 helicopter census. The estimate for burros is based on ground and aerial observations.
Recent monitoring studies and observations in the Calico Complex indicate that moderate and heavy utilization has occurred in the upland habitats and in many lentic and lotic riparian areas (studies available for review at the Winnemucca Field Office). This along with the continued drought confirms the established management range for the wild horse and burro population in the Calico Complex is still appropriate.
23
Table 6: Estimated Horse and Burro Populations
HMA
Wild Horses
Burros
AML
Range
Est’d Pop.
Remove
No.
AML
Range
Est’d Pop.
Remove
No.
Black Rock Range East
56-93
325
269
--
0
0
Black Rock Range West
56-93
644
580
--
0
0
Calico Mountains
200-333
812
612
--
0
0
Granite Range
155-258
440
285
--
0
0
Warm Spring Canyon
105-175
874
769
14-24
29
0
Total
572-952
3,095
2,515
14-24
29
0
Since then, the AML has been adjusted based on in-depth analysis of habitat suitability and monitoring data through Decision Records/Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) and accompanying EAs. The HMA is managed for an AML range from 188 to 314. The current population is estimated at 3,095 head (over five times the low range AML).
Horses are descendants of ranch horses and cavalry remounts. Based on 2005 capture data, horses exhibit bay (61%), sorrel (18%), brown (8%), or black (8%) coat colors. It is uncommon to find buckskins, palominos, roans, pintos, duns, or excessive white markings. Observed phenotypes are fairly consistent and are of Morgan-type. Genetic sampling in 2002 suggests close genetic similarity to domestic horse breeds including, Tennessee Walker, American Saddlebred, Morgan, and Standardbred. Genetic diversity indicators are good. The last capture sex ratio was 54% mares and 46% studs which falls in the normal range. Approximately 60% of the herd was 0-5 years old, 23% were 6-9 years old, and 17% were 10 years and older which is typical of a normal age structure.
Numerous studies identify dietary overlap of preferred forage species and habitat preference between horses, cattle, and wildlife species in the Great Basin ecosystems for all seasons (Ganskopp 1983; Ganskopp et al 1986, 1987; McInnis 1984; McInnis et al 1987; Smith 1986a, 1986b; Smith et al 1982; Vavra et al 1978). A strong potential exists for exploitative competition between horses and cattle under conditions of limited forage (water, and space) availability (McInnis et al 1987). Wild horses compete with wildlife species for various habitat components, especially when populations exceed AML and/or habitat resources become limited (i.e., reduced water flows, low forage production, dry conditions, etc.).
3.3.7 Wilderness Study Areas
The designation of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Natural Area resulted in the area receiving Instant Study Area (ISA) status, which affords the same management as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA). Section 603 (c) of FLPMA directs how the BLM is to manage “lands under
24
wilderness review,” which includes WSAs. These lands are to be managed in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness. Consequently, actions proposed within WSAs are to be evaluated on the basis of their possible direct and indirect impacts on the untrammeled character of the area and wilderness values of naturalness, solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation, and special features. Bureau policy (H-8550-1.III.E) directs that wild horse and burro populations must be managed at appropriate management levels within wilderness study areas. All temporary trap sites and/or holding corrals fall outside these WSA boundaries. Any additional trap sites would be located outside WSA boundaries or on identified roads (ways) within WSAs.
3.3.8 Wildlife
Terrestrial wildlife resources in the Complex are typical of the Northern Great Basin. A wide variety of wildlife species common to the Great Basin ecosystem can be found here. The vegetation could be categorized into the two broad vegetative types – juniper and sagebrush/salt desert scrub. Common wildlife species include coyote, black-tail jackrabbit, desert cottontail, bobcat, and numerous raptors, reptiles, and other small mammal species. Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common big game species in the area.
Bighorn Sheep
Bighorn sheep habitat occurs throughout the Complex. Topography is the primary source of cover for bighorns. Steep broken escarpments (60% plus slope) or rock outcrops at least five acres in size with transversable terraces is optimum. Bighorn sheep are adaptable foragers but three characteristics are common to quality forage: abundance, continuous distribution, and low stature. Grassers have high importance but mixed with forbs and/or shrubs are optimum. Potential Natural Community (PNC) or climax community is optimum with early seral stage the poorest. Also, no fences are an optimum condition for bighorns. For improving and maintaining the habitat for bighorns the sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, wet meadows, and riparian areas for PNC seral stage adjacent to rock outcrops and rimrock is optimum.
Mule Deer
The Complex contains 110,826 acres of mule deer habitat. Most of the habitat is classified as yearlong habitat, with a little over 1,000 acres considered crucial winter habitat. Deer are generally classified as browsers, with shrubs and forbs making up the bulk of their annual diet. The diet of mule deer is quite varied; however, the importance of various classes of forage plants varies by season. In winter, especially when grasses and forbs are covered with snow, their entire diet may consist of shrubby species.
Pronghorn Antelope
The Complex contains 118,555 acres of pronghorn antelope habitat. About 39% of this area is considered as crucial winter range, where antelope concentrate on winters with heavy snow accumulations. Pronghorn use open country with few trees and short shrubs. This is the same habitat that wild horses prefer. Antelope diets consist of forbs and grasses during the spring and early summer and shrub browse the remainder of the year.
25
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Direct impacts and indirect impacts regarding Alternatives 1-2 (Action Alternatives) and Alternative 3 (No Action) are discussed in each resource section (alphabetically) below.
4.1 Cultural Resources
Impacts Common to the Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated because gather sites and temporary holding facilities would be placed in previously disturbed areas or inventoried for cultural resources prior to construction. If cultural resources are encountered, these locations would not be utilized unless they could be modified to avoid impacts to cultural resources.
Areas in the vicinity of permanent and intermittent water sources (i.e., riparian areas) have the highest potential for cultural resource sites. Since wild horses and burros concentrate in these areas, these areas are most likely to be impacted by trampling and erosion. Indirect impacts to cultural resources would be reduced in riparian zones where concentrations of horses can lead to modification and displacement of artifacts and features as well as erosion of organic middens containing valuable information.
Alternative 3. No Action. Defer Gather and Removal.
There would be no direct impacts under this alternative. However indirect impacts described above may increase as wild horse populations continue to increase and concentrate.
4.2 Migratory Birds
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
The project area contains riparian and sagebrush habitats, therefore potential impacts to neo-tropical migrants may be expected. The action alternatives would not directly impact migratory bird populations. The gather would occur when migratory species are not within the HMA. Small areas of migratory bird habitat would be impacted by trampling at trap sites and holding facilities. This impact would be minimal (generally less than 0.5 acre/trap site), temporary, and short-term (two weeks or less) in nature. Indirect impacts would be related to wild horse densities and patterns of use. Reduction of current wild horse populations would provide opportunity for vegetative communities to progress toward achieving a thriving natural ecological balance. The action alternatives would result in an impact to migratory bird habitat by supporting a more diverse vegetative composition and structure through improvement and maintenance of healthy populations of native perennial plants. These improvements would benefit migratory bird species including loggerhead shrikes, vesper sparrows, burrowing owls and migratory and resident raptor species. According to Paige and Ritter (1999), “Long–term heavy grazing may ultimately reduce prey habitat and degrade the vegetation structure for nesting and roosting. Light to moderate grazing may provide open foraging habitat.”
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts. Indirect impacts would be the increasing inability of rangelands to support healthy populations of native perennial plants. Indirect impacts to vegetative communities
26
would increase each year that a gather is postponed which would impact migratory bird species and their habitats.
4.3 Native American Religious Concerns
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
No direct impacts to areas of Native American concern would occur because trap sites and holding areas would be placed in previously disturbed areas and/or in areas where there are no known Native American concerns. Indirect impacts to plants in riparian zones used by Native Americans for medicinal and other purposes would be reduced.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
There would be no direct impacts under this alternative. There would be indirect impacts to areas of Native American concern in riparian zones where concentrations of horses could impact plants utilized by Native Americans for medicinal and other purposes.
4.4 Threatened & Endangered Species
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts to Lahontan cutthroat trout would be minimal, due to the short term duration of the wild horse gather and the minimal occupied and recovery habitat that could be crossed by the gathering. Impacts could be upon the streambanks of occupied or recovery streams as the wild horses cross streams when they are herded by helicopter to the temporary gather sites. Direct impacts would be lessened by the gather taking place during the winter. Indirect impacts would be beneficial with the reduction of the wild horse herd size, which would reduce the long-term impacts of streambank trampling to the occupied and recovery LCT habitat.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
For the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct impacts upon LCT. Indirect impacts from the No Action would be related to the wild horse population size. The population expectation without a gather shows that it would produce the largest number with the wild horse population. This larger population would negatively impact LCT in occupied and recovery streams with streambank trampling, increased sedimentation, reduced vegetation cover, and overall reduced riparian/stream habitat condition.
4.5 Water Quality (Surface and Ground)
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts to water quality occur when wild horses cross streams or springs as they are herded to temporary gather sites. This impact would be temporary and relatively short-term in nature. Indirect impacts would be related to wild horse population size. Reduction of wild horse populations from current levels would decrease competition for available water which should lead to a reduction in hoof action (sediment), nitrates, and fecal coliform in surface waters. This action would have no impact on ground water quality.
27
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts. Indirect impacts would be increasing degradation to water quality as wild horse populations increase each year that a gather is postponed.
4.6 Wetlands and Riparian Zones
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts to wetlands or riparian zones occur when wild horses cross wetland or riparian zones as they are herded to temporary gather sites. This impact would be temporary and relatively short-term in nature. Indirect impacts would be related to wild horse population size. Reduction of wild horse populations from current levels would decrease hoof action around unimproved springs, improve stream bank stability, and improved riparian habitat condition due to decreased utilization of riparian plants.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts. Indirect impacts would be increasing degradation to riparian habitats as wild horse populations increase each year that a gather is postponed.
4.7 Wilderness
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
In the short-term, the sight and noise of helicopters would be noticeable throughout the wilderness during the gather and would reduce opportunities for solitude. However, conducting the gather during the winter months when visitation is least would minimize these effects to the extent possible. Over the long-term, the gather would indirectly decrease trampling, trailing, hedging, and forage utilization of native grasses thereby maintaining vegetative cover and natural conditions.
As identified in Chapter 2 under Management Actions Common to Alternatives 1-2, no motorized vehicles would be used in Wilderness in association with the gather operation unless such use is consistent with the minimum requirements for management of Wilderness and is preapproved by the authorized officer. A Minimum Requirement/Tool analysis was conducted for the proposed action. The worksheet can be found in Appendix E of this document.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
The deferred gather under the No Action Alternative would result in the impacts described under the sections above. These impacts represent continued and increasing degradation of natural conditions and are inconsistent with current policy for the management of wild horse and burro populations within wilderness areas. Because this alternative would defer the gather until a later date, the long-term impacts to the areas untrammeled character would continue to occur.
4.8 Fisheries
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts on fisheries would be minimal, due to the short term duration of the wild horse gather and the minimal fisheries habitat that would be crossed by the gathering. Impacts could be upon the streambanks of some streams as the wild horses cross streams when they are herded
28
by helicopter to the temporary gather sites. Direct impacts would be lessened by the gather taking place during the fall, during low flow on streams. Indirect impacts would be beneficial with the reduction of the wild horse herd size, which would reduce the long-term impacts of streambank trampling to the fisheries habitat.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
With the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct impacts on fisheries. Indirect impacts would be related to the wild horse population size. The population expectation shows that this alternative would produce the largest number with the wild horse population. This larger population would negatively impact fisheries through streambank trampling, increased sedimentation, reduced vegetation (herbaceous and woody) cover, and overall reduced riparian/stream habitat condition.
4.9 Range Management
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
There could be a short term direct impact to livestock due to gather activities by disturbing and disbursing livestock. The indirect impacts would be an increase in the forage availability and quality, reduced competition for water and forage, and improved vegetative resources that would lead to a thriving ecological condition.
Alternative 2. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
There would be no direct impacts of this alternative to the livestock operators or livestock operation. The indirect impacts would be continued resource deterioration resulting from competition between wild horses and livestock for water and forage, reduced quantity and quality forage, and undue hardship on the livestock operators through a lack of livestock forage on public lands.
4.10 Soils
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts associated with the action alternatives would consist of disturbance to soil surfaces immediately in and around the temporary gather site(s) and holding facilities. Impacts would be created by vehicle traffic and hoof action as a result of concentrating horses, and could be locally high in the immediate vicinity of the gather site(s) and holding facilities. Generally, these sites would be small (less than one half acre) in size. Any impacts would remain site specific and isolated in nature. Impacts would be minimal as herding would have a short-term duration.
In addition, most gather sites and holding facilities would be selected to enable easy access by transportation vehicles and logistical support equipment. Normally, they are located near or on roads, pullouts, water haul sites or other flat areas, which have been previously disturbed. These common practices would minimize the long-term effects of these impacts.
Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce the current wild horse population Reduced concentrations of wild horses would contribute to reducing soil erosion.
29
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts are expected under this alternative. Soil loss from wind and water erosion, and invasion of undesired plant species would occur.
4.11 Special Status Species
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
In addition to impacts discussed for migratory bird species in section 4.2, direct impacts would consist primarily of disturbance and displacement to wildlife by the low-flying helicopter and construction of temporary trap/holding facilities. Typically, the natural survival instinct to this type of disturbance is to flee from the perceived danger. These impacts would be minimal, temporary, and of short duration. There is a slight possibility that non-mobile or site-specific animals would be trampled. Indirect impacts would be related to wild horse densities. A reduction in the number of wild horses from current levels would decrease competition for available cover, space, forage, inter-specific stress and competition, and water. Wild horses often display dominant behavior over wildlife species and livestock at water sites forcing animals to wait or go elsewhere for water. A reduction in forage utilization levels and hoof action would improve stream bank stability and riparian habitat condition which would increase insect production required by foraging bats and summering sage-grouse. Reduced utilization levels should produce increased plant vigor, seed production, seedling establishment, and ecological health of the habitat. Resident populations of mule deer and pronghorn antelope would benefit from an increase in forage availability, vegetation density and structure.
Alternatives 1 and 2 alternatives would result in reduced competition with wildlife which would increase the quantity and quality of available forage. There would be fewer disturbances associated with wild horses along stream and riparian habitats and adjacent upland habitats.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
Maintaining the status quo of the wild horse population would negatively impact sensitive species, and other wildlife species and their habitats and would be of greater impact than the Proposed Action. Repeated utilization of key grass, forb, and shrub species; during the peak growing season, may not allow proper plant health. Over time, this may result in diminished habitat quality.
No direct impacts are expected under this alternative. Indirect impacts include increased competition between wild horse and wildlife species and also diminished habitat conditions. Wild horse populations would increase (about 20%) each year that the gather is postponed, which would impact ecological conditions, wildlife populations, and other resource values.
4.12 Vegetation
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts associated with the action alternatives would consist of disturbance to vegetation immediately in and around the temporary gather site(s) and holding facilities. Impacts would be created by vehicle traffic and hoof action as a result of concentrating horses, and could be locally high in the immediate vicinity of the gather site(s) and holding facilities. Generally, these sites
30
would be small (less than one half acre) in size. Any impacts would remain site specific and isolated in nature. These impacts would include trampling of vegetation. Impacts would be minimal as herding would have a short-term duration.
In addition, most gather sites and holding facilities would be selected to enable easy access by transportation vehicles and logistical support equipment. Normally, they are located near or on roads, pullouts, water haul sites or other flat areas, which have been previously disturbed. These common practices would minimize the long-term effects of these impacts.
Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce the current wild horse population and provide the opportunity for the vegetative communities to progress toward achieving a thriving natural ecological balance. Reduced concentrations of wild horses would contribute to the recovery of the vegetative resource. Utilization levels by wild horses would be reduced, which would result in improved forage availability, vegetation density, increased vegetation cover, increased plant vigor, seed production, seedling establishment, and forage production over current conditions. Higher quality forage species (grasses) would be available. Individual wild horse condition and health would improve due to less competition for available resources.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts are expected under this alternative. Indirect impacts include increased competition for forage among multiple-uses as wild horse populations continue to increase. Forage utilization would exceed the capacity of the range resulting in a loss of desired forage species from plant communities as plant health and watershed conditions deteriorate. Abundance and long-term production potential of desired plant communities may be compromised.
Indirect impacts would be increasing degradation to riparian vegetation as wild horse populations increase each year that a gather is postponed.
4.13 Wild Horses
Impacts from Action Alternatives (1-2)
The direct impacts of the Proposed Action would involve the capture 2,476-2,523 excess animals of the estimated 3,095 wild horses estimated in the Complex. This would achieve a remaining population within the AML range and protect rangeland resources from the deterioration associated with the current overpopulation of wild horses. If the gather efficiency is sufficient (i.e., more than 2,523 horses are gathered), fertility control and adjustment of the sex ratio to favor males through the selection of release horses would be applied to decrease the annual population growth.
Population modeling (Appendix C-Graph 1) shows that at 80% gather efficiency (i.e., 80% of the estimated population of 3,095 or 2,476 horses gathered) not enough wild horses could be gathered to implement fertility control or release horses back into the herds and achieve the low range AML. However, if the gather efficiency is 90% (i.e., 90% of the estimated population of 3,095 or 2,787 horses gathered), then some selective removal and fertility treatment could occur (Appendix C-Graph 2) and the low range AML be achieved. The gather would also benefit the health of wild horses remaining in the Complex by reducing competition for forage and water.
31
Implementation of the Proposed Action is needed at this time to prevent deterioration of animal health and reduce impacts to rangeland and wildlife resources from overgrazing by wild horses. This gather would reduce the current wild horse population to the established appropriate management levels to protect horse health and sustainability, support significant progress toward achievement of the Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Standards for Rangeland Health; and, move toward a thriving natural ecological balance between wild horse populations, wildlife, vegetation, riparian-wetland resources, water resources, and domestic livestock.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
The indirect impacts of not removing excess wild horses would affect current and future herd population numbers. The current population estimate is 3,095 head. Populations would continue to grow annually by about 20-24 percent. Without a gather and removal now, the wild horse population in this portion of the HMA would exceed 7,000 head within four years based on population annual growth rate.
Wild horses often graze the same area repeatedly throughout the year. Forage plants in those areas receive little rest from grazing pressure. Continuous grazing does not allow plants sufficient time to recover from grazing impacts, resulting in reduced plant health, vigor, reproduction, and ultimately to a loss of native perennial forage species from natural plant communities. Few resources would be available for wildlife and livestock. Horses may move outside the established HMAs in search of habitat as demands on resources within the HMAs increase.
Indirect impacts may include high horse mortality rates, thin body conditions, and poor health as habitat resources are diminished by increasing horse populations. Older and younger age classes and lactating mares would be most affected by nutritional deficiencies and stress. Skewed sex ratios, undesirable age distributions, and social disruption may result as herd members compete for available resources. Nutritional deficiencies would negatively affect growing animals and may limit their potential growth. Parasites and disease would increase as population densities continue to increase.
4.14 Wilderness Study Areas
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
In the short-term, the sight and noise of helicopters would be noticeable throughout the wilderness or wilderness study area during the gather and would reduce opportunities for solitude. However, conducting the gather during the winter months when visitation is least would minimize these effects to the extent possible. Over the long-term, the gather would indirectly decrease trampling, trailing, hedging, and forage utilization of native grasses thereby maintaining vegetative cover and natural conditions. We do not anticipate any of the actions proposed under the Action Alternatives would impair the suitability of the Lahanton Cutthrout Trout Instant Study Area for preservation as wilderness, should Congress decide to designate the area as such in the future.
As identified in Chapter 2 under Management Actions Common to Alternatives 1-2, no motorized vehicles would be used in Wilderness Study Area in association with the gather
32
operation unless such use is consistent with the minimum requirements for management of wilderness study areas and is preapproved by the authorized officer. A Minimum Requirement/Tool analysis was conducted for the proposed action. The worksheet can be found in Appendix E of this document.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
The deferred gather under the No Action Alternative would result in the impacts described under the sections above. These impacts represent continued and increasing degradation of natural conditions and are inconsistent with current policy for the management of wild horse and burro populations within wilderness study areas. Because this alternative would defer the gather until a later date, the long-term impacts to the areas untrammeled character would continue to occur.
4.15 Wildlife
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Potential impacts to wildlife from Alternatives 1 – 2 are the same as those described under Special Status Species (Section 4.11) above.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
Potential impacts to wildlife from Alternatives 3 are the same as those described under Special Status Species (Section 4.11) above.
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The NEPA regulations define cumulative impacts as impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency, federal or non federal or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
For the purpose of this cumulative analysis, the cumulative area is the Calico Complex and a small portion of lands immediately adjacent. The potential cumulative impacts are directly related to wild horse populations and their cumulative impacts on vegetation quantity and quality. Therefore, the past, present and reasonable future actions presented below concentrates on wild horses and vegetation information for the cumulative assessment area.
5.1 Wild Horses
Past
Applicable Herd Use Area within the Complex were designated in 1982 by the Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio Resource Area Management Framework Plans (MFP) Record of Decisions (ROD), approved on July 9th, 1982 as Herd Management Areas suitable for the long-term management of wild horses.
Nine gathers have occurred with a total of 9,148 wild horses removed and 1,884 released back into the Calico Complex. The earliest BLM gather in this Complex took place in 1979, while the last gather occurred in 2005. One notable removal, 1988, corresponded with a loss of wild
33
horses in the field due to overpopulation, lack of forages and winter conditions. Past gathers and movement of wild horses from nearby HMAs have led to the representation of age and sex classes and the degree of genetic diversity evident in the herd today.
Present
Currently, management of HMAs within the Complex and wild horse population is guided by the July 1982 Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio Resource Area Management Framework Plans (MFP) Record of Decisions (ROD), the July 2004 ROD for the Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA Resource Management Plan and associated Final Multiple-Use Decision (FMUD) as identified in Table 1 (Section 1.4).
Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions
Future wild horse gathers would be conducted about every 3-4 years over the next 10 year period in order to continue to manage the HMA within the established AML. As displayed in the population graphs in Appendix C, the population would reach the high limit of AML in about 2012 or 2013 under Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, three years under Alternative 2. Additional gathers would be needed to remove excess wild horses on a three to four year gather cycle in order to maintain populations within the AML range. Fertility control may also be applied in future gathers in an effort to slow population growth. Cumulatively over the next 5-15 years, these actions should result in fewer gathers and less frequent disturbance to individual wild horses and the herd’s social structure. Individual and herd health would be maintained. However, return of wild horses back into the HMA may lead to the decreased ability to gather horses in the future as released horses learn to evade the helicopter.
Under the No Action alternative, the wild horse population would quickly exceed 5,000 head. A number of emergency removals could be expected in order to prevent individual animals from suffering or death due to lack of forage and water. Increased stress and disturbance to the herd’s social structure would be expected, habitat resources would be over-utilized, and progress toward rangeland health standards would not be met.
Any future proposed projects within these HMAs would be analyzed in an appropriate environmental document following site specific planning. Future project planning would also include public involvement.
5.2 Vegetation
Past
Forage utilization during the 1900’s was high when thousands of cattle, sheep, and horses grazed lands in northern Nevada. In the 1930s when overgrazing threatened to reduce Western rangelands to a dust bowl, Congress approved the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934, which for the first time regulated grazing on public lands. The TGA required ranchers who grazed horses or livestock on public lands to have a permit and to pay a grazing fee, but by that time, thousands of horses roamed the Nevada desert unbranded and unclaimed.
Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act grazing practices contributed to significantly impacting the soil resource. The soil tolerance was exceeded and the soil medium for plant growth was not maintained. Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act livestock grazing activities had significant impacts
34
to the vegetation resources within the impact assessment area by eliminating or greatly reducing the primary understory plants. Cheat grass was introduced into the area in the early 1900s.
Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act grazing practices significantly impacted wetland and riparian zones. Wetland and riparian zones declined, riparian vegetation was insufficient to dissipate energy and filter sediment increasing erosion and destabilizing stream banks and meadows. Destabilization of streams and meadows resulted in incised channels and gullies resulting in lowered water table. In order to support and distribute livestock, a variety of range improvement projects have been implemented through the years dating back to the 1930s.
Past livestock grazing decisions have resulted in adjustments of livestock numbers and seasons of use for the livestock grazing allotments.
Present
While the present livestock grazing system and efforts to manage the wild horse population within the AML has reduced past historic soil impacts and improved current soil resource conditions, the current overpopulation of wild horses is continuing to contribute to heavy utilization of the available forage, resulting in trailing and trampling damage, and is slowing potential vegetation recovery. Managing wild horse populations within the established AML would allow the primary forage plant species to return more rapidly even though vegetation conditions may never be able to return to their potential.
Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions
Livestock grazing is expected to continue at similar stocking rates. Cumulatively over the next 5-15 year period, continuing to manage wild horses within the established AML range would result in improved vegetation condition (i.e. forage availability and quantity), which in turn would positively impact vegetation and other habitat resources.
Under the No Action alternative, the wild horse population would exceed 1,500 head in about two years. Heavy utilization of available forage and insufficient water would be expected. Allowing the wild horse population to continue to grow beyond this number would be likely to result in a population crash at some point during the next decade. At this point, wild horses, wildlife and livestock would not have available forage or water. All animals would experience suffering and possible death. Ecological communities and habitat resources would not be sustainable. Rangeland health would degrade, possibly below biological thresholds, making recovery unlikely if not impossible as cheat grass, medusa head, and other annuals could dominate the understory degrading ecological conditions.
5.3 Cumulative Impacts (For all affected resources analyzed in Chapter 4)
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
This combination of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, along with implementation of any of the action alternatives, should result in more stable wild horse populations, healthier rangelands, healthier wild horses, and fewer multiple use conflicts within the cumulative area over the short and long-term.
35
Cumulative effects from the action alternatives would include continued improvement of upland and riparian vegetation conditions, which would in turn positively impact permitted livestock, native wildlife, and wild horses populations as forage (habitat) quantity and quality is improved over the current level. Benefits from reduced wild horse populations would include fewer animals competing for limited water quantity and at limited sites.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
Cumulative impacts would result in foregoing an opportunity to improve rangeland health and to properly manage wild horses in balance with the available water and forage. Over-utilization of vegetation and other habitat resources would occur as wild horse populations continued to increase. Wild horse populations would be expected to crash at some ecological threshold, however wild horse, livestock, and wildlife would all experience suffering and possible death as rangeland resources continued to degrade. Attainment of RMP/FMUD objectives and Standards for Rangeland Health and Wild Horse and Burro Populations would not be achieved.
6.0 MONITORING and MITIGATION MEASURES
Monitoring
The BLM Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and Project Inspectors (PIs) assigned to the gather would be responsible for insuring contract personnel abide by contract specifications and SOPs. Ongoing rangeland, riparian, and wild horse monitoring would continue, including periodic aerial population survey counts.
Should the Proposed Action gather efficiency exceed 80% and wild horses are released: fertility control monitoring would be conducted in accordance with the SOP’s outlined in Appendix B; and, monitoring the herd’s social behavior would be incorporated into routine monitoring.
The objective of this additional monitoring would be to determine if additional studs form bachelor bands or are more aggressive in competing with breeding bands for forage and water than at present.
7.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Public hearings are held annually on a state-wide basis regarding the use of helicopters and motorized vehicles to capture wild horses (or burros). During these meetings, the public is given the opportunity to present new information and to voice any concerns regarding the use of these methods to capture wild horses (or burros). The Nevada BLM State Office held a meeting on May 20, 2009; several written comments were entered into the record for this hearing. Specific concerns included: (1) the use of helicopters and motorized vehicles is inhumane and results in injury or death to significant numbers of wild horses and burros; (2) inventory methods using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft; (3) reported reproduction and mortality rates; (4) providing the public with pertinent information regarding gather plans at site-specific locations; (5) statistics or statements relating to impacts of helicopter driving, distances, terrain, etc. on wild burro herds; (6) studies on impacts to wild horses and burros on the use of helicopters and helicopter driving during gather. Standard Operating Procedures were reviewed in response to these concerns and no changes to the SOPs were indicated based on this review.
36
Since 2004, BLM Nevada has gathered just over 26,000 excess animals. Of these, mortality has averaged only 0.5% which is very low when handling wild animals. Another 0.6%of the animals captured were humanely euthanized due to pre-existing conditions and in accordance with BLM policy. This data affirms that the use of helicopters and motorized vehicles has proven to be a safe, humane, effective and practical means for the gather and removal of excess wild horses and burros from the range. BLM also avoids gathering wild horses prior to or during the peak foaling season and does not conduct helicopter removals of wild horses during March 1 through June 30.
Consultation between the BLM, State of Nevada Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses and the Sierra Club was conducted in November 2008. These groups toured the area proposed for the gather and jointly concurred that the gather was needed. The conclusion of the group was that the gather was needed to protect the natural resources as well as the wild horses.
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Jerome Fox Wild Horse and Burro Specialist (Lead)
Alan Shepherd Wild Horse & Burro Program Lead (Nevada)
Kathy Ataman Archaeologist
Roger Farschon Ecologist
Greg Lynch Fisheries Biologist
Lynn Ricci Environmental Coordinator
Jill Nannenga Rangeland Management Specialist (Range)
Derek Messmer Rangeland Management Specialist (Weeds)
Mike Zielinski Soil Scientist
Sandi Gracia Backcountry/Wilderness Specialist
Dave Lefevre Recreation
9.0 REFERENCES
Bengston, Ginny. 2002. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field Office Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Final Ethnographic Assessment. Benston Consulting. Sun Valley, Nevada.
Bradley, P.V. et. al. Editors. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, Nevada. 216 pp.
Cothran, E.G. 2004. Genetic Analysis of the North Stillwater, NV feral horse herd. Dept. of Veterinary Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Floyd, Ted et al. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Nevada. University of Nevada Press,
Reno Nevada.
Ganskopp, D.C. 1983. Habitat use and Spatial Interactions of Cattle, Wild Horses, Mule deer, and California Bighorn Sheep in the Owyhee Breaks of Southeast Oregon. PhD Dissertation, Oregon State University.
37
Ganskopp, D.C. and M. Vavra. 1986. Habitat Use by Feral Horses in the Northern Sagebrush Steppe. Journal of Range Management 39(3):207-211.
Ganskopp, D.C. and M. Vavra. 1987. Slope Use by cattle, feral horses, deer, and bighorn sheep. Northwest Science, 61(2):74-80.
Great Basin Bird Observatory. 2003. Nevada Bird Count. A habitat-based monitoring program for breeding birds of Nevada. Instruction package and protocol for point count surveys.
Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. Journal of Range Management. 33:136-142.
Larrucea, Eveline S. 2007. Bureau of Land Management Surprise Field Office Pygmy Rabbit (Sylvilagus idahoensis) Survey. Unpublished report.
McGuckian Jones, Peggy. 1978. Emigrant Trails in the Black Rock Desert. Technical Report No. 6. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.
McInnis, M.A. 1984. Ecological Relationships among Feral Horses, Cattle, and Pronghorn in Southeastern Oregon. PhD Dissertation. Oregon State University.
McInnis, M.A. and M. Vavra. 1987. Dietary relationships among feral horses, cattle, and pronghorn in southeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Mgt 40(1):60-66.
Neel, L.A. (Editor). 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan.
Nevada Department of Wildlife. March 2007. www.ndow.org
Nevada Natural Heritage Program. March 2008. www.heritage.nv.gov
NOAA. www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov
Paige, C., and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, ID.
Platts, W.S., and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Riparian and stream enhancement management and research in the Rocky Mountains. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:115-125.
Riddel, Francis A. 1960. Honey Lake Paiute Ethnography. Anthropological Papers 4. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
Smith, M.A. 1986a. Impacts of Feral Horses Grazing on Rangelands: An Overview. Equine
Veterinary Science, 6(5):236-238.
Smith, M.A. 1986b. Potential Competitive Interactions Between Feral Horses and Other Grazing Animals. Equine Veterinary Science, 6(5):238-239.
38
Smith, M.A. and J.W. Waggoner, Jr., et al. 1982. Vegetation Utilization, Diets, and Estimated Dietary Quality of Horses and Cattle Grazing in the Red Desert of Westcentral Wyoming. BLM Contract No. AA851-CTO-31.
Stewart, Omer C. 1939. The Northern Paiute Bands. University of California Anthropological Records 2(3):127-149.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service
2006 Hydrologic Unit Coverage 5, draft GIS layer
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field Office
1982 Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan (MFP)
1997 Technical Reference 1737-14: Grazing Management for Riparian Wetland Areas
2003 BLM Nevada Migratory bird best management practices for the sagebrush biome
2005 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan Socioeconomic Report
2006a Herd Management Areas GIS layer
2006b Gather Operations GIS layer
2006c Grazing Allotments GIS layer
2006d Wilderness Study Area GIS layer
2006e Winnemucca District Boundary GIS layer
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Species list by Winnemucca Field Office Allotments.
U.S.D.I. Geologic Survey
Digital Raster Graphic (DRG) 1:250,000 topographic maps
Vavra, M. and F. Sneva. 1978. Seasonal diets of five ungulates grazing the cold desert biome.
Proceedings of the First International Rangeland Congress. Society for Range Mgt. Denver, CO.
39
Map 1. Calico Complex Wild Horse Capture Area
BLOGGERS NOTE: "Notes to Self" Highlighted below;
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Wild horses and burros are managed today in designated habitat called Herd Management Areas (HMAs). An Appropriate Management Level (AML) is established for each HMA. (NOT) The AML is (THE BLMs)estimate of wild horses and/or burros the habitat can support while maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance with other resource values and uses. (AMLs ALWAYS SET TOO LOW AND THERE IS NO REQUIRED "BALANCING ACT" WITH OTHER RESOURCES AS THE WFHBA MANDATES THAT THE LANDS BE USED PRINCIPALLY FOR WILD EQUINES. THE 302(a) EXCEPTION TO FLPMA EXEMPTS LANDS FROM ANY "BALANCING OF RESOURCES" FOR LANDS SPECIFICALLY SET ASIDE BY STATUTE FOR A CERTAIN USE.)Population and vegetative monitoring is done to ensure that animals and rangelands remain healthy. Stated as a population range to allow for the periodic removal of animals (to the low range) and subsequent population growth (to the high range) between removals (gathers).
This Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the proposal to capture 2,476-2,787 wild horses, release up to 264, and remove 2,476-2,523 excess wild horses from the Calico Mountains Complex (Complex) which includes the following Herd Management Area (HMAs): Black Rock Range East Black Rock Range West Calico Mountains Granite Range Warm Springs Canyon
Wild horses from these HMAs would be gathered as a Complex or unit as herds move and interact between them. The potential gather area would extend beyond the HMA boundaries as displayed in Map 1 as wild horses have moved outside of HMAs in search of forage, water and space. Burros are only found in the Warm Springs Canyon HMA and would not be gathered or removed as the current population estimate is within the established AML for burros in that HMA. Adjustment of the current AMLs will also not be analyzed in this EA.
The gather would begin in about December 2009 and is expected to take about three months due to potential winter weather delays and the logistics involved in moving traps and holding sites numerous times. Winter gathers in this area are preferred as foals are older and wild horses are down off of the highest elevations, reducing the travel distance to trap site locations. The proposed gather is needed to achieve and maintain the established AML and prevent further range deterioration resulting from the current overpopulation of wild horses within the affected HMAs(WHAT YEAR WERE THESE AMLs SET? I THINK 1980s?)
The Calico Mountain Complex comprises a total of about 542,100 acres and is located about 5-66 miles north and east of Gerlach, in northwest Nevada within Humboldt and Washoe counties. A portion of the area is located within the Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area (NCA). Refer to Map 1.
This EA contains the site-specific analysis of potential impacts that could result with the implementation of the Proposed Action, Alternative or No Action. The EA ensures compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Based on the following analysis of potential environmental consequences, a determination can be made whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or issue a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). A FONSI documents why implementation of the selected alternative will not result in environmental impacts that significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
1.1 Background Information
The current combined AML (COMBINED? THOUGHT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO FIGURE THEM INDIVIDUALLY - ON A AMLs BY AML BASIS)for wild horses is established as a range of 572-952 wild horses. Managing wild horse populations within this number is expected to assure a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship within the Calico Mountains Complex. A direct count census was conducted in September 2009 showing a present population estimate of 3055 wild horses.
The last gather occurred in the winter of 2004-2005 when 2,033 wild horses were gathered, 1,623 removed, and 410 released back to the range. Two hundred and thirty-nine mares were treated with a Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP-22) vaccine (i.e., fertility control agent) and branded for future identification. Following the gather, an estimated 575 wild horses remained in the HMA which was the low combined range of the AML.(HOW CAN IT BE THAT OF THE 575 WHs left and 239 of them were given birth control,...how can it be that their numbers increased so much and so fast?)
However, a helicopter aerial population survey completed in March 2008 resulted in a direct count of 2,067 head, including nine burros. This data suggests an average annual growth rate of over 50% which is unrealistic. Wild horse herds in this area generally increase between 20-30% annually. Instead, this data suggests the post gather population estimate was substantially less than the actual populations. This is likely attributable to two factors: (1) census data used prior to the 2004-2005 gather was incomplete due to poor weather conditions and the population estimate was lower than actual, and (2) because wild horses range widely in this area, they may have moved out of the area during the gather operation.
The current estimated population of 3,095 wild horses for the Calico Mountains Complex is based on current modeling and confirmed with an aerial census conducted in September 2009. This estimate is based upon survey results projected using historic growth rates for each HMA (20-27%) and include this year’s foal crop. The current population is about 5.5 times the low range of the AML (572 head) or about three times over the carrying capacity or high range AML of 952 head.
The current U.S. Drought Monitor classifies northwest Nevada as severe to abnormally dry (WHERE SEVERE AS OPPOSED TO "ABNORMALLY" DRY?)(http://drought.unl.edu.dm, July 28, 2009). The U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook indicates drought in northern Nevada is expected to persist (valid July 16 through October, 2009. Results of drought conditions is evident throughout the Complex with low forage production in some areas and decreased water flows, although spotty June rains did help forage production and several dirt reservoirs caught some runoff.
Recent monitoring studies and observations in the Calico Complex indicate that moderate and heavy utilization has occurred in the upland habitats and in many lentic and lotic riparian areas (studies available for review at the Winnemucca Field Office). This along with the continued drought confirms the established management range for the wild horse and burro population in the Calico Complex is still appropriate.(NOT - THE CONDITIONS CONFIRM THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO REMOVE THE PRIVATELY OWNED CATTLE OFF OF THESE LANDS THAT ARE, BY STATUTE, SUPPOSED TO BE UTILIZED PRINCIPALLY BY WILD HORSES AND BURROS!NOW IS THE TIME TO START PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE LAWS, SPECIFICALLY, THE WFRHBA, CFR 4710.5 AND FLMPA SEC. 302 (a)
Analysis of the above information indicates the current AML of 572-952 wild horses in the Calico Mountains Complex is appropriate (NOT)and that excess wild horses are present and require immediate removal.(NOT: REMOVE THE COWS!)
1.2 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to capture 2,476-2,787 wild horses, release up to 264, and remove 2,476-2,523 excess animals of the estimated 3,095 wild horses estimated in the Complex. This would achieve a remaining population within the AML range and protect rangeland resources from the deterioration associated with the current overpopulation of wild horses as authorized under Section 3(b) (2) of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (1971 WFRHBA) and Section 302(b) of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976.(FLMPA DOES NOT APPLY HERE! PERSUANT TO FLMPA SEC< 302(a))MANAGEMENT OF USE, OCCUPANCY, AND DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 302. [43 U.S.C. 1732] (a) The Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained yield, in accordance with the land use plans developed by him under section 202 of this Act when they are available, except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to specific uses according to any other provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with such law.Therefore, NO SECTION of the FLPMA does apply to historic wh&B ranges, even "(b)" as the EA is claiming here, the need to gather these herds allegedly to comply with sec. (b" of FLPMA; .. In managing the public lands, the Secretary shall, subject to this Act and other applicable law and under such terms and conditions as are consistent with such law, regulate, through easements, permits, leases, licenses, published rules, or other instruments as the Secretary deems appropriate, the use, occupancy, and development of the public lands, including, but not limited to, long-term leases to permit individuals to utilize public lands for habitation, cultivation, and the development of small trade or manufacturing concerns: Provided, That unless otherwise provided for by law, the Secretary may permit Federal departments and agencies to use, occupy, and develop public lands only through rights-of-way under section 507 of this Act, withdrawals under section 204 of this Act, and, where the proposed use and development are similar or closely related to the programs of the Secretary for the public lands involved, cooperative agreements under subsection (b) of section 307 of this Act: Provided further, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary concerned to require Federal permits to hunt and fish on public lands or on lands in the National Forest System and adjacent waters or as Public Law 94–579—Oct. 21, 1976, as amended through May 7, 2001 ———— 21
enlarging or diminishing the responsibility and authority of the States for management of fish and resident wildlife. However, the Secretary concerned may designate areas of public land and of lands in the National Forest System where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing will be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance with provisions of applicable law. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary concerned relating to hunting and fishing pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State fish and game department. Nothing in this Act shall modify or change any provision of Federal law relating to migratory birds or to endangered or threatened species. Except as provided in section 314, section 603, and subsection (f) of section 601 of this Act and in the last sentence of this paragraph, no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress. In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.
EA Con't:
If the gather efficiency is sufficient (i.e., more than 2,523 horses are gathered), fertility control and adjustment of the sex ratio to favor males through the selection of release horses would be applied to decrease the annual population growth.
Population modeling (Appendix C-Graph 1) shows that at 80% gather efficiency (i.e., 80% of the estimated population of 3,095 or 2,476 horses gathered) not enough wild horses could be gathered to implement fertility control or release horses back into the herds and achieve the low range AML. However, if the gather efficiency is 90% (i.e., 90% of the estimated population of 3,095 or 2,787 horses gathered), then some selective removal and fertility treatment could occur (Appendix C-Graph 2) and the low range AML be achieved. The gather would also benefit the health of wild horses remaining in the Complex by reducing competition for forage and water. (IF YOU REALLY WANT TO REDUCE COMPETITION-GET RID OF THE COWS-AS THE LAW STATES YOU SHOULD!)
Implementation of the Proposed Action is needed at this time to prevent deterioration of animal health and reduce impacts to rangeland and wildlife resources from overgrazing by wild horses.(to hell w/the wildlife too! These lands ARE statutoriley designated for use PRINCIPALLY for wild equines!)
This gather would reduce the current wild horse population to the established appropriate management levels (OH, U MEAN THE AMLS SET WAAAY BACK IN THE 1980s?)to protect horse health and sustainability, support significant progress toward achievement of the Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Standards for Rangeland Health; (MUST LOOK INTO THAT AS IT SOUNDS STRANGELY FAMILIAR TO THE MOJAVE-GREAT BASIN RMP WHERE THE PLAN WAS FOR DEVELOPMENT TO TAKE PLACE AFTER THE WILD ONES WERE ALL GONE)and, move toward a thriving natural ecological balance between wild horse populations, wildlife, vegetation, riparian-wetland resources, water resources, and domestic livestock.(THERE IS NO "BALANCE" REQUIRMENT UNDER THE FLMPA (302(A) EXCEPTION AS THE WFHBA MANDATES THAT THE WILD EQUINES HAVE PRINCIPAL USE OF THE LAND....if there truely isnt enough forage for all, the law mandates that the cows go first in wild horse country and that under no circumstances should the horses go first!)/
1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance
The Proposed Action and other alternatives considered are in conformance with the Record of Decisions (RODs) for the Paradise-Denio and Sonoma-Gerlach Resource Area Management Framework Plans (MFPs) approved on July 9th, 1982. (DONT WE THINK ITS TIME FOR A NEW ONE?)Applicable decisions and goals are: to manage sustainable populations of wild horses, maintain a thriving ecological balance, (AGAIN,....there IS NO "BALANCE" requirment for lands statutorily designated PRINCIPALLY for wild equine use!Traditional Wild Horse lands are exempt from this FLMPA requirement)and to maintain free-roaming behavior.
The Proposed Action is also in conformance with the July 2004 ROD for the Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA Resource Management Plan (RMP).
Applicable decisions are:
WHB-1: Retain referenced HMAs (Black Rock Range East, Black Rock Range West, Calico Mountains, Warm Springs Canyon, and Granite Range) and manage wild horse or burro populations consistent with plan objectives.
WHB-3: Contiguous HMAs with documented reproductive interaction will be managed as complexes to enable better management of genetic traits for the population and to improve coordination of monitoring and gathering.
WHB-5: Horses and burros will be gathered from the HMAs to maintain horses and burros within the AML as funding permits. Aircraft will continue to be used for the management and, when necessary, removal of wild horses and burros. Gather activities will be scheduled to avoid high visitor use periods whenever possible.
WHB-6: Gathers in Wilderness will continue to be conducted by herding the animals by helicopter or on horseback to temporary corrals, generally located outside of Wilderness. No landing of aircraft will occur in Wilderness Areas except for emergency purposes, and no motorized vehicles will be used in Wilderness in association with the gather operations unless such use was consistent with the minimum tool requirement for management of Wilderness.
1.4 Relationship to Laws, Regulations, and Other Plans
Statutes and Regulations
The Proposed Action and other action alternatives are in conformance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (PL 92-195, as amended) and applicable regulations at 43 CFR 4700 and policies. Included are:
43 CFR 4710.4: Management of wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with limiting the animals’ distribution to herd areas. Management shall be at the minimum feasible level necessary to attain the objectives identified in approved land use plans and herd management area plans.
43 CFR 4720.1: Upon examination of current (OUTDATED)information and a determination by the authorized officer that an excess of wild horses or burros exists, the authorized officer shall remove the excess animals immediately.
Other Plans
The Proposed Action and other action alternatives are in conformance with Biological Opinions and Recovery Plans for Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species, including:
Biological Opinion for the 2003 through 2013 Livestock grazing System for the Soldier Meadows Allotment, Humboldt County, Nevada, August 14, 2003.
Biological Opinion for the 2003 through 2013 Livestock Grazing System for the Paiute Meadows Allotment, Humboldt County, Nevada, June 13, 2003.
Recovery Plan for the Rare Species of Soldier Meadows, 1997.
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan, 1995.
The AML is established as a population range of 586-976 wild horses and burros (Table 1). Allocations of available forage to wildlife, domestic livestock and wild horses or burros within the Complex were made following in-depth analysis of resource monitoring data and issuance of Final Multiple Use Decisions (FMUDs). Any adjustments to initial AMLs established in FMUDs were made pending further in-depth site-specific environmental analysis and decision issuance.(AND WHEN IS THAT TO OCCUR? IN OUR LIFETIMES?)
Table 1: Calico Mountains Complex - AML Establishment Summary
HMA
Allotment
Decision Type/Date
AML
Black Rock Range East
Soldier Meadows
Pine Forest
FMUD – 1/24/94
FMUD – 09/30/05
56-93 H
0
Black Rock Range West
Soldier Meadows
FMUD – 1/24/94
EA# NV-020-00-27
56-93 H
Calico Mountains
Buffalo Hills
Leadville
Soldier Meadows
FMUD – 2/9/93
FMUD – 1/19/94
FMUD – 1/24/94
EA# NV-020-03-09
200-333 H
Granite Range
Buffalo Hills
FMUD – 2/9/93
EA# NV-020-05-02
155-285 H
6
HMA
Allotment
Decision Type/Date
AML
Warm Springs Canyon
Soldier Meadows
FMUD – 1/24/94
EA# NV-020-03-09
105-175 H; 14-24 B
TOTAL
586-976
1.5 Conformance with Land Health Standards
HMAs within the Complex has not been assessed for conformance with Standards for Rangeland Health as developed in consultation with the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC). However, some riparian assessments have been conducted prior to 2003. (WELL WHAT HAS BLM BEEN DOING SINCE 2003? TOO BUSY ROUNDING UP WILD HORSES TO UPDATE YER RECORDS?)Utilization monitoring and trend data indicates excess wild horse use is contributing to the Riparian/Wetland and Plant and Animal Habitat Standards not being met. (THERE CAN BE NO EXCESS WILD ONES WHILE COWS STILL OUTNUMBER THEM ON THEIR TRADITIONAL RANGES!)The Proposed Action is consistent with making significant progress towards or meeting Rangeland Health Standards and conforms to the recommendations presented in the March 2007 Standards and Guidelines for Management of Wild Horses and Burros of the Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Area.
1.6 Decision to be Made
Under the 1971 WFRHBA, the authorized officer has the authority to determine whether appropriate management levels (AMLs) should be achieved by the removal of excess animals, or other options (such as sterilization or natural controls on population levels). Consistent with this authority, the authorized officer will select the population control method(s) to be implemented beginning in about December 2009 to achieve and maintain a healthy wild horse population within the appropriate management level that is in balance with the productive capacity of the habitat and other multiple uses.(MULTIPLE USE UPON TRADITIONAL WH&B LANDS IS ALLOWED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHER USES OF THE LAND MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PRINCIPAL USE BY THE HORSES)
------------------------------CON'T HERE
Scoping and Identification of Issues
Issues identified during routine business conducted with Resource Advisory Councils, Nevada Department of Wildlife, US Fish & Wildlife Service, livestock operators and others, underscores the need for BLM to maintain wild horse and burro populations within the appropriate management level (AML). Consultation between the BLM, State of Nevada Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses and the Sierra Club was conducted in November 2008. These groups toured the area proposed for the gather and jointly concurred that the gather was needed. The conclusion of the group was that the gather was needed to protect the natural resources as well as the wild horses.
The following issues have been identified:
1. A need to implement different or additional population control methods in order to maintain population size within AML over the long-term. Measurement indicators for this issue include:
Projected average annual growth rate/expected effectiveness of proposed population control methods (WinEquus population modeling);
Projected gather frequency;
Projected number of excess animals to be removed and placed in the adoption, sale, and short or long term holding pipelines over the next 10 years.
7
2. Impacts to vegetation/soils, riparian/wetland, and cultural resources. Measurement indicators for this issue include:
Expected forage utilization;
Potential impacts to vegetation/soils and riparian/wetland resources.
3. Impacts to wildlife, migratory birds, and threatened, endangered and special status species and their habitat. Measurement indicators for this issue include:
Potential for short-term displacement, trampling or disturbance;
Potential competition for forage and water over time.
4. Impacts to individual wild horses and the herd. Measurement indicators for this issue include:
Potential impacts to animal health and condition;
Expected impacts to individual wild horses and herd social structure from future gather operations (handling stress);
Potential effects to genetic diversity.
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
This section of the EA describes the Proposed Action and alternatives, including any that were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. Alternatives analyzed in detail include the following:
Alternative 1: Proposed Action: Removal, Fertility Control, & 60% Male Sex Ratio
Alternative 2: Removal Only
Alternative 3: No Action – Defer Gather and Removal
The action alternatives were developed to meet the Purpose and Need and respond to the identified issues. Few management options exist as the current wild horse population is so far over AML that it is not expected that enough horses can be gathered to implement management actions such as fertility control or adjusting the sex ratio. However, fertility control and sex ratio adjustments would occur if there is an opportunity to do so. The action alternatives are designed to meet the need to remove excess wild horses in order to protect the range from deterioration associated with overpopulation. Although the No Action alternative does not comply with the 1971 WFRHBA (as amended), nor does it meet the purpose and need for action, it is included as a basis for comparison with the action alternatives.
2.1 Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail
2.1.1 Management Actions Common to Alternatives 1-2
The wild horse gather would be scheduled to occur beginning in December 2009 and would be expected to take approximately three months to complete. Several factors such as animal
8
condition, herd health, weather conditions, or other considerations could result in adjustments to the schedule.
Gather operations would be conducted in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) described in the National Wild Horse Gather Contract. Appendix A outlines the SOPs currently in effect. The primary gather (capture) methods would be the helicopter drive method and helicopter assisted roping (from horseback).
Gather operations in wilderness areas would be conducted by herding the animals by helicopter or on horseback to temporary corrals, generally located outside wilderness boundary. No landing of aircraft would occur in Wilderness Areas except for emergency purposes, and no motorized vehicles would be used in Wilderness in association with the gather operation unless such use is consistent with the minimum requirements for management of Wilderness and is preapproved by the authorized officer.
Trap sites and holding facilities would be located in previously used trap sites and other disturbed areas (Map 1). Undisturbed areas identified as potential trap sites or holding facilities would be inventoried for cultural resources. If cultural resources are encountered, these locations would not be utilized unless they could be modified to avoid impacts to cultural resources. Trap sites and holding facilities would not be placed in known areas of Native American concern.
Gathers activities would be scheduled to avoid high visitor use periods whenever possible.
Data including sex and age distribution, reproduction, body condition class information (using the Henneke rating system), color, size and other information may also be recorded, along with the disposition of that animal (removed or released).
Hair samples would be acquired on about 25-50 animals from each HMA to determine whether acceptable genetic diversity is being maintained (avoid inbreeding depression).
An Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) or other licensed veterinarian may be on-site, as needed, to examine animals and make recommendations to BLM for care and treatment of wild horses.
Decisions to humanely euthanize animals in field situations would be made in conformance with BLM policy (Washington Office Instruction Memorandum). Current policy reference: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2009/IM_2009-041.html.
Excess animals would be sent to Bureau facilities for adoption, sale, or long-term holding.
Noxious weed monitoring at trap sites and temporary holding facilities would be conducted in the spring and summer of 2010 by BLM. Treatment would be provided, if necessary, following guidance from the Noxious Weed Control EA# NV-020-02-19.
9
Existing monitoring including: forage condition and utilization, water availability, aerial population surveys and animal health would continue.
A comprehensive post-gather aerial population survey would occur within 12 months following completion of the gather operation.
2.1.2 Alternative 1. Proposed Action: Removal, Fertility Control & 60% Male Sex Ratio
In addition to the actions described in Section 2.1.1, the Complex would be managed within a range of 572-952 wild horses and 14-24 wild burros as follows:
• 2,476 (80%) to 2,787 (90%) wild horses of the total estimated wild horse population (3,095 head) would be captured, up to 264 head (80 treated mares and 184 studs) would be released back onto the range, and 2,476 to 2,523 excess wild horses would be removed from the range to achieve the low range AML.
If the gather efficiency exceeds 80% (2,476 head) then the following management actions would be implemented to the degree possible while still achieving the low range AML:
• Mares selected for release, including those previously treated with fertility control, would be treated/retreated with a two-year Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP-22) or similar vaccine and released back to the range. Immuno-contraceptive research would be conducted in accordance with the approved standard operating and post-treatment monitoring procedures (SOPs, Appendix B). Mares would be selected to maintain a diverse age structure, herd characteristics and conformation.
• Studs selected for release would be released to increase the post-gather sex ratio to approximately 60% studs in the remaining herds. Studs would be selected to maintain a diverse age structure, herd characteristics and conformation.
• Animals would be removed using a selective removal strategy to the extent possible. Selective removal criteria include:
(1) First Priority: Age Class - Five Years and Younger
(2) Second Priority: Age Class - Six to Fifteen Years Old
(3) Third Priority: Age Class Sixteen Years and Older
• Post-gather, every effort would be made to return released horses to the same general area from which they were gathered.
2.1.3 Alternative 2. Removal Only
In addition to the actions described in Section 2.1.1, the Complex would be managed as a range of 572-952 wild horses and 14-24 wild burros as follows:
• 2,476 (80%) to 2,523 (82%) wild horses of the total estimated wild horse population (3,095 head) would be captured and 2,476 to 2,523 excess wild horses would be removed. To achieve the low range AML, a minimum of 2,523 horses would need to be removed.
10
• A post-gather sex ratio of approximately 45-50% studs/50-55% mares would be maintained.
2.1.4 Alternative 3. No Action. Defer Gather and Removal
Under the No Action Alternative, the capture and removal of approximately 2,523 excess wild horses would not occur within the next year. There would be no additional management actions undertaken to control the size of the wild horse populations at this time.
2.1.5 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
Use of Bait and/or Water Trapping
An alternative considered but dismissed from detailed analysis was use of bait and/or water trapping as the primary gather method. This alternative was dismissed from detailed study for the following reasons: (1) the size of the area is too large to use this method and water is available from multiple area; (2) outside the HMA boundary, a large number of water sources are present on both private and public lands which would make it impractical to restrict wild horse access and effectively remove the animals without extending the time required to remove the horses. The expanded area and the extended time would result in an increase in gather cost.
Gather Every Two Years and Apply Two-Year PZP
Another alternative would be to gather the Complex wild horses every two years and apply two-year PZP (PZP-22) to breeding age mares. However, due to the size of the area and the complexity involved in gathering the wild horse population, and given that other reasonable management options exist, this alternative was dropped from detailed study.
Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives Considered in Detail
Item
Proposed Action
(80% GE)
Proposed Action
(90% GE)
Alternative 2
No Action Alternative
Impacts to Wild Horses
Number of Horses Captured in Complex
2,476
2,787
2,476 - 2,523
0
Number of Horses Removed from Complex
2,476
2,523
2,476 – 2,523
0
Number of Horses Released back to Complex
0
up to 264
0
0
PZP Applied
No
Yes
No
No
Post-Gather Sex Ratio (approx)
45-50/50-55
males/females
50-60/40-50
males/females
45-50/50-55
males/females
45-50/50-55
males/females
11
Item
Proposed Action
(80% GE)
Proposed Action
(90% GE)
Alternative 2
No Action Alternative
Post-Gather Horse Population
An estimated post-gather population of approximately 572 – 619 wild horses (.e. low range of AML) would remain under the action alternatives if a minimum gather efficiency of 80% is achieved and the pre-gather population estimate of 3,095 head is accurate.
A post-gather aerial population survey flight would occur within 12 months to verify the post-gather estimate.
The current population of 3,095 animals would be expected to grow to 3,807 animals following the 2010 foaling season.
3.0 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section of the EA briefly discusses the relevant components of the human environment which would be either affected or potentially affected by the Action Alternatives or No Action (refer to Tables 3 and 4 below). Direct impacts are those that result from the management actions while indirect impacts are those that exist once the management action has occurred.
3.1 General Description of the Affected Environment
The Complex comprises a total of about 542,100 HMA acres and is considered the primary gather area. It includes the Granite Range, Calico Mountains, Trough Mountain and Black Rock Range topographic features. It is bound on the east by the Black Rock Desert, on the north by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Sheldon Antelope Refuge, on the west by adjacent HMAs administered by the Surprise Field Office in Cedarville, California and by the small town of Gerlach, Nevada on the south. However, due to wild horse movement outside of the Complex, the potential gather area may include additional areas outside the HMAs (see Map 1).
Elevations within the Complex range from 3,920 along the Black Rock Desert to 9,056 feet at Granite Peak. Climate within the Complex is characterized by warm dry days, cool nights and low yearly precipitation that range from 4 at lower elevations to approximately 16 inches at higher elevations. Most precipitation occurs as winter snow.
Vegetation varies from salt desert shrub communities at lower elevations to big sagebrush/bunch grass communities at higher elevations. Typical species at lower elevations include shadscale, bud sage, winterfat, black greasewood, squirreltail, and Sandberg’s bluegrass. Species typical in higher elevations include low sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, Utah juniper, mountain mahogany, quaking aspen, needlegrass, blue bunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, squirreltail, Indian paintbrush, and phlox. Historic wildfire scars occur throughout some portions of the Complex and mainly support cheat grass.
Numerous small perennial streams and springs occur throughout the Complex. The Calico Mountains, Warm Springs Canyon, and south Black Rock Range HMAs are most water limited due to scarcity of sites and low flows (photo 5). Livestock water developments (e.g., wells, troughs and dirt reservoirs) are important sources of water (photo 6) for wild horses as well.
12
Photo 5. Low flows and heavy wild horse use at Leadville meadow, Calico Mountains HMA, 8/08
Photo 6. Low spring flows at Jacob’s spring trough, Warm Springs Canyon HMA, 7/09
3.2 Supplemental Authorities (Critical Environmental Elements of the Human Environment)
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the following elements of the human environment are subject to requirements specified in statute, regulation or executive order and must be considered.
Table 3: Supplemental Authorities (Critical Elements of the Human Environment)
CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Present
Affected
Rationale
Air Quality
YES
NO
The proposed gather area is not within an area of non-attainment or areas where total suspended particulates exceed Nevada air quality standards. Areas of disturbance would be small and temporary.
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC’s)
NO
NO
Not present.
Cultural Resources
YES
YES
Trap sites and/or holding corrals would be placed in disturbed areas or inventoried prior to use. Locations would avoid cultural resource sites. However, other potential impacts are discussed below.
Environmental
NO
NO
Not present.
13
CRITICAL ELEMENTS
Present
Affected
Rationale
Justice
Floodplains
NO
NO
Resource not present.
Invasive, Nonnative Species
YES
NO
Any noxious weeds or non-native invasive weeds would be avoided when establishing trap and/or holding facilities, and would not be driven through. Noxious weed monitoring at trap/holding sites would be conducted and applicable treatment of weeds would occur per Noxious Weed Control EA#NV-020-02-19 as needed.
Migratory Birds
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Native American Religious Concerns
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Prime or Unique Farmlands
NO
NO
Resource not present.
Threatened & Endangered Species
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wastes, Hazardous or Solid
NO
NO
Not present.
Water Quality (Surface/Ground)
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wetlands and Riparian Zones
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
NO
NO
Resource not present.
Wilderness
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Critical elements identified as present and potentially affected by the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 1-2) and/or the No Action Alternative include: Cultural Resources, Migratory Birds, Native American Religious Concerns, Threatened & Endangered Species, Water Quality,
14
Wetlands and Riparian Zones, and Wilderness. Additional discussion is included in the following sections.
3.2.1 Cultural Resources
A complete inventory of archeological sites in the Complex has not been completed; the gather area covers a wide area and includes a diversity of cultural resources from different time periods. Previous inventories have identified pre-historic sites (rock art sites, lithic scatters, isolated projectile points, etc.) in the area. Two of the gather areas are near some of the oldest recorded archaeological sites in the District, near extinct Lake Parman. The highest concentration of prehistoric sites is in association with permanent and intermittent water sources. There are several gather sites near Soldier Meadows, which is rich in both prehistoric and historic resources. Historic sites associated with ranching and mining are known to occur in this area as well. Segments of both the 1852 Nobles Route, a cutoff from the Applegate-Lassen Trail, and the Applegate-Lassen Trail itself (a National Historic Trail) pass near some of the gather sites. These trails were some of the most heavily traveled wagon routes for nineteenth century emigrants to California and Oregon.
3.2.2 Migratory Birds
Neo-tropical migrant bird species are those species that breed in the temperate portions of North America and winter in the tropics in either North or South America. They are protected by international treaty and additional emphasis on maintaining or improving their habitats is provided by Executive Order #13186. Within the Great Basin and the project area, quality riparian habitats and healthy sagebrush communities with inclusions of trees and shrubs are required for healthy neo-tropical migrants' populations. A migratory bird inventory has not been completed for the entire Complex. One point count transect has been set up on and adjacent to aspen habitats within the Stanley Camp Riparian pasture. The habitats sampled within the riparian pasture are not representative of the vast majority of horse habitats within the Complex. Migratory birds observed on the nearby point count transect outside the Complex but in similar environments include: black-throated sparrow, rock wren, sage sparrow, Western meadowlark, horned lark, Say’s phoebe, lark sparrow, violet-green swallow, tree swallow, Bullock’s oriole, and black-billed magpie. Other possible inhabitants of this habitat include Brewer’s blackbird, Brewer’s sparrow, burrowing owl, canyon wren, gray flycatcher, green-tailed towhee, loggerhead shrike, sage thrasher, and vesper sparrow (Great Basin Bird Observatory, 2003). The burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and vesper sparrow are BLM designated sensitive species and are discussed in section 3.3.3.
3.2.3 Native American Religious Concerns
The proposed action is within the traditional territory of the kamodökadö (“jack-rabbit eaters”), the atsakudöka tuviwarai (“red butte dwellers”), and the aga’ ipañinadökadö (“fish lake eaters”) or madökadö (“wild onion eaters”) bands of Northern Paiute peoples. These bands are identified with modern groups that include the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, the Fort McDermitt Tribe, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the Susanville Indian Rancheria. There are no known traditional cultural properties or sacred sites in the capture areas. However, water sources are considered sacred by Native American tribes and riparian zones, in particular, are rich sources of plants for medicinal and other uses.
15
3.2.4 Threatened & Endangered Species
A list of federally listed, proposed or candidate species was requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the proposed project area (2009). The Fish and Wildlife Service responded that the following species may be found within the proposed project area: 1) Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi, LCT) as a threatened species, 2) Desert Dace (Eremichthys across) as a threatened species, 3) Elongate mud meadows springsnail (Pyrugulopsis notidicola) as a candidate species, and 4) Soldier Meadow cinquefoil (Potentilla basaltica) as a candidate species. There are no other known Threatened or Endangered Species in the proposed project area.
Lahontan Cutthroat Trout - Several streams within the Proposed Calico Complex Wild Horse Capture Area support existing populations of Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi, LCT). LCT is a federally listed Threatened species since 1975 (Federal Register Vol. 40, p. 29864). Mahogany, Summer Camp, Snow, and Colman creeks exist entirely within the Soldier Meadows Allotment and currently are occupied by LCT. North Fork Battle Creek exists within the Paiute Meadows Allotment and is currently occupied by LCT.
Several streams within the Proposed Calico Complex Wild Horse Capture Area have been identified as priority streams for LCT recovery in the 1995 USFWS LCT Recovery Plan and the 1999 NDOW Species Management Plan for LCT. The streams identified are as follows: Donnelly Creek (Soldier Meadows Allotment); Bartlett and Paiute creeks (Paiute Meadows Allotment); Cottonwood, Granite, Red Mountain, and Rock creeks (Buffalo Hills Allotment). There is currently no known LCT within these streams.
Desert Dace - The hot springs and their outflows to the south and west of the Soldier Meadows Ranch are the only known habitats for the desert dace (Eremichthys across). The desert dace has been federally listed as Threatened since 1985 (Federal Register Volume 50, p. 50304,) and is the only member of the genus, Eremichthys. At the time of listing, critical habitat was also listed, that encompasses 50 feet on each side of designated thermal springs and their outflow streams (USFWS 1997). The desert dace occupied habitat was fenced off in 2005 and the potential trap/holding sites are outside of the fenced area. For this reason, the proposed activities are judged to have no impact on this species or its habitats and will be dismissed from further analysis.
Elongate mud meadows springsnail – Numerous spring systems exist within the Hot Springs Area of the Soldier Meadows area, which range from cold (near or below mean air temperature), thermal (5-10o C above mean air temperature), or hot (more than 10o C above mean air temperature) (see Sada et al. 2001). Within the SMA several springsnails, which are small (1-8 mm high) mollusks that require high quality water (Sada et al. 2001), have been identified as being unique to the area. The majority of these species are members of the genus Prygulopsis, with one species belonging to the genus Fluminicola. These genera prefer cool, flowing water and gravel substrate (Sada et al. 2001). One species, the elongate mud meadows pryg is listed by the USFWS as a candidate species for protection under the ESA. The primary areas of known springsnail concentrations on public lands occur in the vicinity of the desert dace critical habitats that were fenced to exclude livestock and wild horses in 2005. The proposed action is outside the fenced area for the species, and therefore there is no impact on the springsnail species or its habitats and will be dismissed from further analysis.
16
Soldier Meadow cinquefoil – Potentilla basaltica is an herbaceous perennial plant that grows primarily in the Soldier Meadows area. It is currently listed by the USFWS as a candidate for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register Vol. 67, p. 40662). The plant grows from prostrate stems extending from a low basal rosette. Bright yellow flowers occur in loose clusters at the end of the stems. The species blooms from late spring and summer. The species is associated with moist saline/alkaline soils associated with alkali seeps and meadows. The species appears to favor sites with micro-relief in saturated soils to obtain root aeration. Surveys completed by Nachlinger in 1990 and repeated by FWS in 2002 and BLM in 2009 indicate stable to increasing populations. Most potential habitat is occupied, except where vehicle trails cross through small areas of otherwise suitable habitat. The current threats are associated with recreation use of occupied habitat. Basalt cinquefoil also exhibits the ability to colonize previously disturbed areas, including old livestock corrals and the raised rim of hoof prints in wet soils. All documented populations within the project area are outside designated HMAs and within exclosures constructed in part to eliminate wild horse impacts on the species. For this reason, the proposed activities are judged to have no impact on this species or its habitats and will be dismissed from further analysis.
3.2.5 Water Quality (Surface and Ground)
Most of the springs are associated with or located along the stream channels. No water quality data has been collected within the Complex; however, the water quality is expected to be of good quality for these springs and streams. Isolated springs and catchments are expected to have fair to poor water quality with elevated levels of nitrates and fecal coliform in areas of concentrated wild horse use. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has not listed any of the water bodies within the allotment on the State of Nevada List of Impaired Water Bodies (Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act).
Photo 7. Summit Spring, Black Rock Range West HMA, low spring flows, 10/08.
Photo 8. Burnt Spring, heavy riparian utilization, Black Rock Range East HMA, 10/08
17
Photo 9. Meadow with headcuts and heavy wild horse utilization, Black Rock Range, 10/08.
Photo 10. Little water of poor quality in small dirt catchment, Calico Mountains HMA, 8/08.
3.2.6 Wetlands and Riparian Zones
Riparian areas are limited within the Complex and are generally associated with small streams, springs and seeps. Riparian sites within the Complex have been recently assessed for riparian functionality. The majority of sites are classified as “functioning at risk.” Riparian sites are heavily utilized especially when the water flow is low and water availability is limited during droughts (photo 7). Observations of meadows associated with springs show severe utilization of meadows, residual stubble heights of less than two inches and active erosion of meadow soils due to trampling (photos 8-9). Numerous dirt catchments exist, but water availability is dependent on seasonal water or storm events and water quality degrades with heavy use (photo 10).
3.2.7 Wilderness
The project area includes all or portions of the East Fork High Rock Canyon, High Rock Lake, North Black Rock Range, Pahute Peak, and the Black Rock Desert Wilderness Areas. These wilderness areas were designated by the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon-Emigrant Trails National Conservation Act of 2000 (Refer to Map 1). The Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates that wilderness areas be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as would leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness. The Wilderness Act mandates that wilderness areas be managed in such a manner as to maintain or enhance the values of naturalness, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive or unconfined recreation, and any special features found in the areas. Several special features were specifically mentioned for the affected Wilderness Areas in the BRHR NCA Act of 2000. They include; wagon ruts, historic inscriptions, prehistoric and historic Native American sites, large natural potholes, threatened fish and sensitive plants, and a largely untouched emigrant trail viewshed.
3.3 Additional Affected Resources
In addition to the critical elements above, the following resources may be affected by the Action Alternatives (Alternatives 1-2) and/or the No Action Alternative: livestock management,
18
sensitive and/or special status species, soils, vegetation, wild horses, wildlife, and wilderness study areas.
Table 4: Other Resources Checklist
OTHER RESOURCES
Present
Affected
Rationale
Fisheries
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Rangeland Management
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Special Status Species
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Soils
YES
YES
Soil disturbances would be less than 1 acre in size and trap sites would be located in previously disturbed areas. Discussed further under vegetation.
Vegetation
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wild Horses
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wilderness Study Area
YES
YES
Discussed below.
Wildlife
YES
YES
Discussed below.
3.3.1 Fisheries
Several of the streams in the proposed project area currently contain salmonid species. The streams with salmonids that have not been discussed in section 3.2.4 are Bartlett Creek, Granite Creek, and Red Mountain Creek. These streams include a variety of salmonids, including: rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
3.3.2 Rangeland Management
Buffalo Hills, Leadville, Paiute Meadows, and Soldier Meadows allotments occur within the Complex and are currently permitted for livestock use as identified in Table 2. Livestock use generally occurs between April 1 and October 30, although it may occur throughout the year.
19
Table 5: Permitted Livestock use in the Calico Mountains Complex
Allotment
Permitted Use
Season of Use
Buffalo Hills
639 Cattle
4/1 – 10/15
Leadville
235 Cattle
5/1 - 10/15
Paiute Meadows
524 Cattle
300 Cattle
3/15 – 5/15
11/1 – 1/15
Soldier Meadows
800 Cattle
1/16 - 12/15
3.3.3 Soils
The occurrence of bare soil is high with deep soil churning, heavy trailing and active erosion due to the lack of vegetation and hoof actions. The majority of soils in these HMA’s were developed under low precipitation with minimal topsoil development. All soil types are subject to water and wind erosion. With the excessive trailing and hoof action this area has the potential of accelerated erosion following intense storms or snow melt. Potential water erosion hazard for the trap sites is slight and potential wind erosion hazard is moderate. Soil surface disturbance due to hoof action and vehicle use would be limited to trap sites.
3.3.4 Special Status Species
Both Threatened and Endangered Species (addressed in 3.2.4) and Sensitive Species (addressed below) are considered Special Status Species. No on-the-ground field investigation was conducted for sensitive/protected plant, or animal species including birds. However, the Nevada Natural Heritage Program (NNHP) database (March, 2008) and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) Diversity database (August, 2007) were consulted for the possible presence of endangered, threatened, candidate and/or sensitive plants or animal species. NDOW data show observances of golden eagle, prairie falcon, northern goshawk, and burrowing owl within the Complex. The NNHP database showed no observances of Special Status Species within the Complex.
Sensitive Species
The following designated Bureau of Land Management sensitive animal or plant species are described as they have either been seen in the Complex or the area contains habitat characteristics conducive to these species.
Bats
Several species of bats may occur in this area. Most bats in Nevada are year-round residents. In general terms, bats eat insects and arthropods during the warmer seasons and hibernate in underground structures during the cooler seasons. Bats commonly roost in caves, mines, outcrops, buildings, trees and under bridges. Bats may eat flies, moths, beetles, ants, scorpions, centipedes, grasshoppers, and crickets. Bats thrive where the plant communities are healthy enough to support a large population of prey (Bradley et al 2006).
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owls are known to occur within this area. Burrowing owls prefer open, arid, treeless landscapes with low vegetation. They are dependent upon burrowing mammal populations for maintenance of nest habitat and choose nesting areas based on burrow availability (Floyd et al
20
2007). These birds are highly adaptable and readily nest in open disturbed areas such as golf courses, runways, and industrial areas that border suitable habitat (Neel, 1999). Dense stands of grasses and forbs within owl home ranges support populations of rodent and insect prey. Urbanization is the biggest threat to this species as suitable habitat is converted to non-habitat for human use (Floyd et al 2007).
Greater Sage-grouse
Greater sage-grouse is a BLM sensitive species. The Complex contains 103,145 acres of key sage-grouse habitat. Key habitat is designated for those areas that support all the habitat requirements to support sage-grouse populations. Four active leks have been identified within the HMA with two additional leks with historic use. Leks are communal breeding ground for sage-grouse and are commonly considered to be the center of nesting activity. Sage-grouse require large expanses of sagebrush with good under stories of forbs and grasses. Sagebrush provides nesting and hiding cover and forage for much of the year. Forbs provide spring nutrition and grasses provide visual screening for nests. Additionally wet meadows are needed to provide green forbs when other sites dry out, water and insects for the chicks during the hot summer months.
Pygmy Rabbit
In the Great Basin, the pygmy rabbit is typically restricted to the stands of tall sagebrush on deep loamy soils. There has been no inventory for pygmy rabbits in this area so their presence is unknown. Surveys have been completed to the north and west of the Complex during 2005 and 2006. No rabbits or signs of their occupation were observed (Larrucea, 2007).
Raptors
Golden eagle, prairie falcon, and northern goshawk have been observed in the Complex. Golden eagles are primarily cliff nesters and would utilize the area to forage for prey species such as jackrabbits and other small mammals. Golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Nevada’s Golden eagle population is thought to be stable to increasing. They are widespread and frequently encountered (Floyd et al 2007).
The prairie falcon may be found foraging in sagebrush habitats that have cliffs in close proximity for nesting. They prey on small mammals and birds, especially horned lark. Populations experienced declines in the 60’s and 70’s but appear to be stable now in the West (Paige and Ritter 1999).
The Northern goshawk is a forest hawk inhabiting coniferous and aspen forests. One sighting was reported in the Complex in the month of October. This individual would have been migrating to a winter area and not occupying the area for any length of time. No nesting, breeding, or foraging habitat exists within the Complex.
Vesper Sparrow
The vesper sparrow may be found in this area since it typically inhabits sagebrush-grass vegetative communities at the higher elevations. The vesper sparrow forages on the ground and eats mostly seeds from grasses and forbs and will also eat insects when they are available. The vesper sparrow responds negatively to heavy grazing in sagebrush/grasslands. In these habitats, it
21
benefits from open areas with scattered shrubs and a cover of good bunchgrasses for nest concealment, since it is a ground nester (Paige and Ritter 1999).
Basalt cinquefoil
Basalt cinquefoil, a BLM sensitive species, is found around the hot springs located in the Soldier Meadows allotment near the ranch headquarters, but outside of any HMA.
3.3.5 Vegetation
Vegetation varies from salt desert shrub communities at lower elevations to big sagebrush/bunch grass communities at higher elevations. Typical species at lower elevations include shadscale, bud sage, winterfat, black greasewood, squirreltail, and Sandberg’s bluegrass. Species typical in higher elevations include low sage, Lahontan sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbitbrush, Utah juniper, needlegrass, blue bunch wheatgrass, basin wildrye, squirreltail, Indian paintbrush, and phlox.
Site visits were conducted in late August and mid-November. Where grasses are accessible, utilization is estimated between 40 to 90 percent throughout the HMA with the majority of plants showing utilization of 60-80% (photo 7). There is evidence of horses traversing extremely rocky slopes in search of grasses. Much of the bitterbrush and other palatable browse species throughout the HMA, but especially in areas near waters, are decadent (photo 8) or dead (some known moth kill) and other plants show low production and moderate to heavy hedging, with the majority of plants and leaders browsed.
Photo 11. Heavy utilization, basin wildrye, 8/08.
Photo 12. Decadent browse species, 8/08.
Utilization of new plant growth on the area burned (about 1,000 acres) by the Tin Canyon Fire in 2002 is heavy to severe (photos 9-10)
22
Photo 13. Burned/unburned vegetation and bare soil contrast, 8/08.
Photo 14. Wild rose growing through deep churned soils in burn area, 8/08.
3.3.6 Wild Horses
Historical evidence indicates that the American westward expansion of explorers, settlers, cavalry, miners, farmers, and ranchers in the mid-1800s was the source of present day wild horses and burros in this area. The vast number of settlers entering the Great Basin, especially livestock operators, caused many changes to the native cold desert environment including water developments, supplemental livestock feeding, and farm crops. This enhanced the basic habitat elements for horse survival. Loss of stock, abandonment, and intentional horse breeding all contributed to the establishment of mustangs in this area.
The Complex is managed for an AML range of 572-952 wild horses and 14-24 burros. The current estimated population of 3,095 wild horses is based on modeling and confirmed by recent aerial census. Direct observation counts from the flight were projected using historic annual growth rates for each HMA (20-27%) and include this year’s foal crop. The current population is about 5.5 times the low range of the AML (572 head) or about three times over the carrying capacity or high range AML of 952 head.
Table 6 displays the estimated wild horse and burro populations by HMA and the AML range for each HMA. The population estimate is based on population modeling and confirmed with a 2009 helicopter census. The estimate for burros is based on ground and aerial observations.
Recent monitoring studies and observations in the Calico Complex indicate that moderate and heavy utilization has occurred in the upland habitats and in many lentic and lotic riparian areas (studies available for review at the Winnemucca Field Office). This along with the continued drought confirms the established management range for the wild horse and burro population in the Calico Complex is still appropriate.
23
Table 6: Estimated Horse and Burro Populations
HMA
Wild Horses
Burros
AML
Range
Est’d Pop.
Remove
No.
AML
Range
Est’d Pop.
Remove
No.
Black Rock Range East
56-93
325
269
--
0
0
Black Rock Range West
56-93
644
580
--
0
0
Calico Mountains
200-333
812
612
--
0
0
Granite Range
155-258
440
285
--
0
0
Warm Spring Canyon
105-175
874
769
14-24
29
0
Total
572-952
3,095
2,515
14-24
29
0
Since then, the AML has been adjusted based on in-depth analysis of habitat suitability and monitoring data through Decision Records/Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) and accompanying EAs. The HMA is managed for an AML range from 188 to 314. The current population is estimated at 3,095 head (over five times the low range AML).
Horses are descendants of ranch horses and cavalry remounts. Based on 2005 capture data, horses exhibit bay (61%), sorrel (18%), brown (8%), or black (8%) coat colors. It is uncommon to find buckskins, palominos, roans, pintos, duns, or excessive white markings. Observed phenotypes are fairly consistent and are of Morgan-type. Genetic sampling in 2002 suggests close genetic similarity to domestic horse breeds including, Tennessee Walker, American Saddlebred, Morgan, and Standardbred. Genetic diversity indicators are good. The last capture sex ratio was 54% mares and 46% studs which falls in the normal range. Approximately 60% of the herd was 0-5 years old, 23% were 6-9 years old, and 17% were 10 years and older which is typical of a normal age structure.
Numerous studies identify dietary overlap of preferred forage species and habitat preference between horses, cattle, and wildlife species in the Great Basin ecosystems for all seasons (Ganskopp 1983; Ganskopp et al 1986, 1987; McInnis 1984; McInnis et al 1987; Smith 1986a, 1986b; Smith et al 1982; Vavra et al 1978). A strong potential exists for exploitative competition between horses and cattle under conditions of limited forage (water, and space) availability (McInnis et al 1987). Wild horses compete with wildlife species for various habitat components, especially when populations exceed AML and/or habitat resources become limited (i.e., reduced water flows, low forage production, dry conditions, etc.).
3.3.7 Wilderness Study Areas
The designation of the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Natural Area resulted in the area receiving Instant Study Area (ISA) status, which affords the same management as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA). Section 603 (c) of FLPMA directs how the BLM is to manage “lands under
24
wilderness review,” which includes WSAs. These lands are to be managed in a manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness. Consequently, actions proposed within WSAs are to be evaluated on the basis of their possible direct and indirect impacts on the untrammeled character of the area and wilderness values of naturalness, solitude and primitive or unconfined recreation, and special features. Bureau policy (H-8550-1.III.E) directs that wild horse and burro populations must be managed at appropriate management levels within wilderness study areas. All temporary trap sites and/or holding corrals fall outside these WSA boundaries. Any additional trap sites would be located outside WSA boundaries or on identified roads (ways) within WSAs.
3.3.8 Wildlife
Terrestrial wildlife resources in the Complex are typical of the Northern Great Basin. A wide variety of wildlife species common to the Great Basin ecosystem can be found here. The vegetation could be categorized into the two broad vegetative types – juniper and sagebrush/salt desert scrub. Common wildlife species include coyote, black-tail jackrabbit, desert cottontail, bobcat, and numerous raptors, reptiles, and other small mammal species. Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common big game species in the area.
Bighorn Sheep
Bighorn sheep habitat occurs throughout the Complex. Topography is the primary source of cover for bighorns. Steep broken escarpments (60% plus slope) or rock outcrops at least five acres in size with transversable terraces is optimum. Bighorn sheep are adaptable foragers but three characteristics are common to quality forage: abundance, continuous distribution, and low stature. Grassers have high importance but mixed with forbs and/or shrubs are optimum. Potential Natural Community (PNC) or climax community is optimum with early seral stage the poorest. Also, no fences are an optimum condition for bighorns. For improving and maintaining the habitat for bighorns the sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, wet meadows, and riparian areas for PNC seral stage adjacent to rock outcrops and rimrock is optimum.
Mule Deer
The Complex contains 110,826 acres of mule deer habitat. Most of the habitat is classified as yearlong habitat, with a little over 1,000 acres considered crucial winter habitat. Deer are generally classified as browsers, with shrubs and forbs making up the bulk of their annual diet. The diet of mule deer is quite varied; however, the importance of various classes of forage plants varies by season. In winter, especially when grasses and forbs are covered with snow, their entire diet may consist of shrubby species.
Pronghorn Antelope
The Complex contains 118,555 acres of pronghorn antelope habitat. About 39% of this area is considered as crucial winter range, where antelope concentrate on winters with heavy snow accumulations. Pronghorn use open country with few trees and short shrubs. This is the same habitat that wild horses prefer. Antelope diets consist of forbs and grasses during the spring and early summer and shrub browse the remainder of the year.
25
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Direct impacts and indirect impacts regarding Alternatives 1-2 (Action Alternatives) and Alternative 3 (No Action) are discussed in each resource section (alphabetically) below.
4.1 Cultural Resources
Impacts Common to the Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts to cultural resources are not anticipated because gather sites and temporary holding facilities would be placed in previously disturbed areas or inventoried for cultural resources prior to construction. If cultural resources are encountered, these locations would not be utilized unless they could be modified to avoid impacts to cultural resources.
Areas in the vicinity of permanent and intermittent water sources (i.e., riparian areas) have the highest potential for cultural resource sites. Since wild horses and burros concentrate in these areas, these areas are most likely to be impacted by trampling and erosion. Indirect impacts to cultural resources would be reduced in riparian zones where concentrations of horses can lead to modification and displacement of artifacts and features as well as erosion of organic middens containing valuable information.
Alternative 3. No Action. Defer Gather and Removal.
There would be no direct impacts under this alternative. However indirect impacts described above may increase as wild horse populations continue to increase and concentrate.
4.2 Migratory Birds
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
The project area contains riparian and sagebrush habitats, therefore potential impacts to neo-tropical migrants may be expected. The action alternatives would not directly impact migratory bird populations. The gather would occur when migratory species are not within the HMA. Small areas of migratory bird habitat would be impacted by trampling at trap sites and holding facilities. This impact would be minimal (generally less than 0.5 acre/trap site), temporary, and short-term (two weeks or less) in nature. Indirect impacts would be related to wild horse densities and patterns of use. Reduction of current wild horse populations would provide opportunity for vegetative communities to progress toward achieving a thriving natural ecological balance. The action alternatives would result in an impact to migratory bird habitat by supporting a more diverse vegetative composition and structure through improvement and maintenance of healthy populations of native perennial plants. These improvements would benefit migratory bird species including loggerhead shrikes, vesper sparrows, burrowing owls and migratory and resident raptor species. According to Paige and Ritter (1999), “Long–term heavy grazing may ultimately reduce prey habitat and degrade the vegetation structure for nesting and roosting. Light to moderate grazing may provide open foraging habitat.”
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts. Indirect impacts would be the increasing inability of rangelands to support healthy populations of native perennial plants. Indirect impacts to vegetative communities
26
would increase each year that a gather is postponed which would impact migratory bird species and their habitats.
4.3 Native American Religious Concerns
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
No direct impacts to areas of Native American concern would occur because trap sites and holding areas would be placed in previously disturbed areas and/or in areas where there are no known Native American concerns. Indirect impacts to plants in riparian zones used by Native Americans for medicinal and other purposes would be reduced.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
There would be no direct impacts under this alternative. There would be indirect impacts to areas of Native American concern in riparian zones where concentrations of horses could impact plants utilized by Native Americans for medicinal and other purposes.
4.4 Threatened & Endangered Species
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts to Lahontan cutthroat trout would be minimal, due to the short term duration of the wild horse gather and the minimal occupied and recovery habitat that could be crossed by the gathering. Impacts could be upon the streambanks of occupied or recovery streams as the wild horses cross streams when they are herded by helicopter to the temporary gather sites. Direct impacts would be lessened by the gather taking place during the winter. Indirect impacts would be beneficial with the reduction of the wild horse herd size, which would reduce the long-term impacts of streambank trampling to the occupied and recovery LCT habitat.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
For the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct impacts upon LCT. Indirect impacts from the No Action would be related to the wild horse population size. The population expectation without a gather shows that it would produce the largest number with the wild horse population. This larger population would negatively impact LCT in occupied and recovery streams with streambank trampling, increased sedimentation, reduced vegetation cover, and overall reduced riparian/stream habitat condition.
4.5 Water Quality (Surface and Ground)
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts to water quality occur when wild horses cross streams or springs as they are herded to temporary gather sites. This impact would be temporary and relatively short-term in nature. Indirect impacts would be related to wild horse population size. Reduction of wild horse populations from current levels would decrease competition for available water which should lead to a reduction in hoof action (sediment), nitrates, and fecal coliform in surface waters. This action would have no impact on ground water quality.
27
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts. Indirect impacts would be increasing degradation to water quality as wild horse populations increase each year that a gather is postponed.
4.6 Wetlands and Riparian Zones
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts to wetlands or riparian zones occur when wild horses cross wetland or riparian zones as they are herded to temporary gather sites. This impact would be temporary and relatively short-term in nature. Indirect impacts would be related to wild horse population size. Reduction of wild horse populations from current levels would decrease hoof action around unimproved springs, improve stream bank stability, and improved riparian habitat condition due to decreased utilization of riparian plants.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts. Indirect impacts would be increasing degradation to riparian habitats as wild horse populations increase each year that a gather is postponed.
4.7 Wilderness
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
In the short-term, the sight and noise of helicopters would be noticeable throughout the wilderness during the gather and would reduce opportunities for solitude. However, conducting the gather during the winter months when visitation is least would minimize these effects to the extent possible. Over the long-term, the gather would indirectly decrease trampling, trailing, hedging, and forage utilization of native grasses thereby maintaining vegetative cover and natural conditions.
As identified in Chapter 2 under Management Actions Common to Alternatives 1-2, no motorized vehicles would be used in Wilderness in association with the gather operation unless such use is consistent with the minimum requirements for management of Wilderness and is preapproved by the authorized officer. A Minimum Requirement/Tool analysis was conducted for the proposed action. The worksheet can be found in Appendix E of this document.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
The deferred gather under the No Action Alternative would result in the impacts described under the sections above. These impacts represent continued and increasing degradation of natural conditions and are inconsistent with current policy for the management of wild horse and burro populations within wilderness areas. Because this alternative would defer the gather until a later date, the long-term impacts to the areas untrammeled character would continue to occur.
4.8 Fisheries
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts on fisheries would be minimal, due to the short term duration of the wild horse gather and the minimal fisheries habitat that would be crossed by the gathering. Impacts could be upon the streambanks of some streams as the wild horses cross streams when they are herded
28
by helicopter to the temporary gather sites. Direct impacts would be lessened by the gather taking place during the fall, during low flow on streams. Indirect impacts would be beneficial with the reduction of the wild horse herd size, which would reduce the long-term impacts of streambank trampling to the fisheries habitat.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
With the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct impacts on fisheries. Indirect impacts would be related to the wild horse population size. The population expectation shows that this alternative would produce the largest number with the wild horse population. This larger population would negatively impact fisheries through streambank trampling, increased sedimentation, reduced vegetation (herbaceous and woody) cover, and overall reduced riparian/stream habitat condition.
4.9 Range Management
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
There could be a short term direct impact to livestock due to gather activities by disturbing and disbursing livestock. The indirect impacts would be an increase in the forage availability and quality, reduced competition for water and forage, and improved vegetative resources that would lead to a thriving ecological condition.
Alternative 2. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
There would be no direct impacts of this alternative to the livestock operators or livestock operation. The indirect impacts would be continued resource deterioration resulting from competition between wild horses and livestock for water and forage, reduced quantity and quality forage, and undue hardship on the livestock operators through a lack of livestock forage on public lands.
4.10 Soils
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts associated with the action alternatives would consist of disturbance to soil surfaces immediately in and around the temporary gather site(s) and holding facilities. Impacts would be created by vehicle traffic and hoof action as a result of concentrating horses, and could be locally high in the immediate vicinity of the gather site(s) and holding facilities. Generally, these sites would be small (less than one half acre) in size. Any impacts would remain site specific and isolated in nature. Impacts would be minimal as herding would have a short-term duration.
In addition, most gather sites and holding facilities would be selected to enable easy access by transportation vehicles and logistical support equipment. Normally, they are located near or on roads, pullouts, water haul sites or other flat areas, which have been previously disturbed. These common practices would minimize the long-term effects of these impacts.
Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce the current wild horse population Reduced concentrations of wild horses would contribute to reducing soil erosion.
29
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts are expected under this alternative. Soil loss from wind and water erosion, and invasion of undesired plant species would occur.
4.11 Special Status Species
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
In addition to impacts discussed for migratory bird species in section 4.2, direct impacts would consist primarily of disturbance and displacement to wildlife by the low-flying helicopter and construction of temporary trap/holding facilities. Typically, the natural survival instinct to this type of disturbance is to flee from the perceived danger. These impacts would be minimal, temporary, and of short duration. There is a slight possibility that non-mobile or site-specific animals would be trampled. Indirect impacts would be related to wild horse densities. A reduction in the number of wild horses from current levels would decrease competition for available cover, space, forage, inter-specific stress and competition, and water. Wild horses often display dominant behavior over wildlife species and livestock at water sites forcing animals to wait or go elsewhere for water. A reduction in forage utilization levels and hoof action would improve stream bank stability and riparian habitat condition which would increase insect production required by foraging bats and summering sage-grouse. Reduced utilization levels should produce increased plant vigor, seed production, seedling establishment, and ecological health of the habitat. Resident populations of mule deer and pronghorn antelope would benefit from an increase in forage availability, vegetation density and structure.
Alternatives 1 and 2 alternatives would result in reduced competition with wildlife which would increase the quantity and quality of available forage. There would be fewer disturbances associated with wild horses along stream and riparian habitats and adjacent upland habitats.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
Maintaining the status quo of the wild horse population would negatively impact sensitive species, and other wildlife species and their habitats and would be of greater impact than the Proposed Action. Repeated utilization of key grass, forb, and shrub species; during the peak growing season, may not allow proper plant health. Over time, this may result in diminished habitat quality.
No direct impacts are expected under this alternative. Indirect impacts include increased competition between wild horse and wildlife species and also diminished habitat conditions. Wild horse populations would increase (about 20%) each year that the gather is postponed, which would impact ecological conditions, wildlife populations, and other resource values.
4.12 Vegetation
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Direct impacts associated with the action alternatives would consist of disturbance to vegetation immediately in and around the temporary gather site(s) and holding facilities. Impacts would be created by vehicle traffic and hoof action as a result of concentrating horses, and could be locally high in the immediate vicinity of the gather site(s) and holding facilities. Generally, these sites
30
would be small (less than one half acre) in size. Any impacts would remain site specific and isolated in nature. These impacts would include trampling of vegetation. Impacts would be minimal as herding would have a short-term duration.
In addition, most gather sites and holding facilities would be selected to enable easy access by transportation vehicles and logistical support equipment. Normally, they are located near or on roads, pullouts, water haul sites or other flat areas, which have been previously disturbed. These common practices would minimize the long-term effects of these impacts.
Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce the current wild horse population and provide the opportunity for the vegetative communities to progress toward achieving a thriving natural ecological balance. Reduced concentrations of wild horses would contribute to the recovery of the vegetative resource. Utilization levels by wild horses would be reduced, which would result in improved forage availability, vegetation density, increased vegetation cover, increased plant vigor, seed production, seedling establishment, and forage production over current conditions. Higher quality forage species (grasses) would be available. Individual wild horse condition and health would improve due to less competition for available resources.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
No direct impacts are expected under this alternative. Indirect impacts include increased competition for forage among multiple-uses as wild horse populations continue to increase. Forage utilization would exceed the capacity of the range resulting in a loss of desired forage species from plant communities as plant health and watershed conditions deteriorate. Abundance and long-term production potential of desired plant communities may be compromised.
Indirect impacts would be increasing degradation to riparian vegetation as wild horse populations increase each year that a gather is postponed.
4.13 Wild Horses
Impacts from Action Alternatives (1-2)
The direct impacts of the Proposed Action would involve the capture 2,476-2,523 excess animals of the estimated 3,095 wild horses estimated in the Complex. This would achieve a remaining population within the AML range and protect rangeland resources from the deterioration associated with the current overpopulation of wild horses. If the gather efficiency is sufficient (i.e., more than 2,523 horses are gathered), fertility control and adjustment of the sex ratio to favor males through the selection of release horses would be applied to decrease the annual population growth.
Population modeling (Appendix C-Graph 1) shows that at 80% gather efficiency (i.e., 80% of the estimated population of 3,095 or 2,476 horses gathered) not enough wild horses could be gathered to implement fertility control or release horses back into the herds and achieve the low range AML. However, if the gather efficiency is 90% (i.e., 90% of the estimated population of 3,095 or 2,787 horses gathered), then some selective removal and fertility treatment could occur (Appendix C-Graph 2) and the low range AML be achieved. The gather would also benefit the health of wild horses remaining in the Complex by reducing competition for forage and water.
31
Implementation of the Proposed Action is needed at this time to prevent deterioration of animal health and reduce impacts to rangeland and wildlife resources from overgrazing by wild horses. This gather would reduce the current wild horse population to the established appropriate management levels to protect horse health and sustainability, support significant progress toward achievement of the Sierra Front-Northwest Great Basin Standards for Rangeland Health; and, move toward a thriving natural ecological balance between wild horse populations, wildlife, vegetation, riparian-wetland resources, water resources, and domestic livestock.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
The indirect impacts of not removing excess wild horses would affect current and future herd population numbers. The current population estimate is 3,095 head. Populations would continue to grow annually by about 20-24 percent. Without a gather and removal now, the wild horse population in this portion of the HMA would exceed 7,000 head within four years based on population annual growth rate.
Wild horses often graze the same area repeatedly throughout the year. Forage plants in those areas receive little rest from grazing pressure. Continuous grazing does not allow plants sufficient time to recover from grazing impacts, resulting in reduced plant health, vigor, reproduction, and ultimately to a loss of native perennial forage species from natural plant communities. Few resources would be available for wildlife and livestock. Horses may move outside the established HMAs in search of habitat as demands on resources within the HMAs increase.
Indirect impacts may include high horse mortality rates, thin body conditions, and poor health as habitat resources are diminished by increasing horse populations. Older and younger age classes and lactating mares would be most affected by nutritional deficiencies and stress. Skewed sex ratios, undesirable age distributions, and social disruption may result as herd members compete for available resources. Nutritional deficiencies would negatively affect growing animals and may limit their potential growth. Parasites and disease would increase as population densities continue to increase.
4.14 Wilderness Study Areas
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
In the short-term, the sight and noise of helicopters would be noticeable throughout the wilderness or wilderness study area during the gather and would reduce opportunities for solitude. However, conducting the gather during the winter months when visitation is least would minimize these effects to the extent possible. Over the long-term, the gather would indirectly decrease trampling, trailing, hedging, and forage utilization of native grasses thereby maintaining vegetative cover and natural conditions. We do not anticipate any of the actions proposed under the Action Alternatives would impair the suitability of the Lahanton Cutthrout Trout Instant Study Area for preservation as wilderness, should Congress decide to designate the area as such in the future.
As identified in Chapter 2 under Management Actions Common to Alternatives 1-2, no motorized vehicles would be used in Wilderness Study Area in association with the gather
32
operation unless such use is consistent with the minimum requirements for management of wilderness study areas and is preapproved by the authorized officer. A Minimum Requirement/Tool analysis was conducted for the proposed action. The worksheet can be found in Appendix E of this document.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
The deferred gather under the No Action Alternative would result in the impacts described under the sections above. These impacts represent continued and increasing degradation of natural conditions and are inconsistent with current policy for the management of wild horse and burro populations within wilderness study areas. Because this alternative would defer the gather until a later date, the long-term impacts to the areas untrammeled character would continue to occur.
4.15 Wildlife
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
Potential impacts to wildlife from Alternatives 1 – 2 are the same as those described under Special Status Species (Section 4.11) above.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
Potential impacts to wildlife from Alternatives 3 are the same as those described under Special Status Species (Section 4.11) above.
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The NEPA regulations define cumulative impacts as impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency, federal or non federal or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
For the purpose of this cumulative analysis, the cumulative area is the Calico Complex and a small portion of lands immediately adjacent. The potential cumulative impacts are directly related to wild horse populations and their cumulative impacts on vegetation quantity and quality. Therefore, the past, present and reasonable future actions presented below concentrates on wild horses and vegetation information for the cumulative assessment area.
5.1 Wild Horses
Past
Applicable Herd Use Area within the Complex were designated in 1982 by the Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio Resource Area Management Framework Plans (MFP) Record of Decisions (ROD), approved on July 9th, 1982 as Herd Management Areas suitable for the long-term management of wild horses.
Nine gathers have occurred with a total of 9,148 wild horses removed and 1,884 released back into the Calico Complex. The earliest BLM gather in this Complex took place in 1979, while the last gather occurred in 2005. One notable removal, 1988, corresponded with a loss of wild
33
horses in the field due to overpopulation, lack of forages and winter conditions. Past gathers and movement of wild horses from nearby HMAs have led to the representation of age and sex classes and the degree of genetic diversity evident in the herd today.
Present
Currently, management of HMAs within the Complex and wild horse population is guided by the July 1982 Sonoma-Gerlach and Paradise-Denio Resource Area Management Framework Plans (MFP) Record of Decisions (ROD), the July 2004 ROD for the Black Rock Desert High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails NCA Resource Management Plan and associated Final Multiple-Use Decision (FMUD) as identified in Table 1 (Section 1.4).
Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions
Future wild horse gathers would be conducted about every 3-4 years over the next 10 year period in order to continue to manage the HMA within the established AML. As displayed in the population graphs in Appendix C, the population would reach the high limit of AML in about 2012 or 2013 under Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, three years under Alternative 2. Additional gathers would be needed to remove excess wild horses on a three to four year gather cycle in order to maintain populations within the AML range. Fertility control may also be applied in future gathers in an effort to slow population growth. Cumulatively over the next 5-15 years, these actions should result in fewer gathers and less frequent disturbance to individual wild horses and the herd’s social structure. Individual and herd health would be maintained. However, return of wild horses back into the HMA may lead to the decreased ability to gather horses in the future as released horses learn to evade the helicopter.
Under the No Action alternative, the wild horse population would quickly exceed 5,000 head. A number of emergency removals could be expected in order to prevent individual animals from suffering or death due to lack of forage and water. Increased stress and disturbance to the herd’s social structure would be expected, habitat resources would be over-utilized, and progress toward rangeland health standards would not be met.
Any future proposed projects within these HMAs would be analyzed in an appropriate environmental document following site specific planning. Future project planning would also include public involvement.
5.2 Vegetation
Past
Forage utilization during the 1900’s was high when thousands of cattle, sheep, and horses grazed lands in northern Nevada. In the 1930s when overgrazing threatened to reduce Western rangelands to a dust bowl, Congress approved the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934, which for the first time regulated grazing on public lands. The TGA required ranchers who grazed horses or livestock on public lands to have a permit and to pay a grazing fee, but by that time, thousands of horses roamed the Nevada desert unbranded and unclaimed.
Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act grazing practices contributed to significantly impacting the soil resource. The soil tolerance was exceeded and the soil medium for plant growth was not maintained. Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act livestock grazing activities had significant impacts
34
to the vegetation resources within the impact assessment area by eliminating or greatly reducing the primary understory plants. Cheat grass was introduced into the area in the early 1900s.
Prior to the Taylor Grazing Act grazing practices significantly impacted wetland and riparian zones. Wetland and riparian zones declined, riparian vegetation was insufficient to dissipate energy and filter sediment increasing erosion and destabilizing stream banks and meadows. Destabilization of streams and meadows resulted in incised channels and gullies resulting in lowered water table. In order to support and distribute livestock, a variety of range improvement projects have been implemented through the years dating back to the 1930s.
Past livestock grazing decisions have resulted in adjustments of livestock numbers and seasons of use for the livestock grazing allotments.
Present
While the present livestock grazing system and efforts to manage the wild horse population within the AML has reduced past historic soil impacts and improved current soil resource conditions, the current overpopulation of wild horses is continuing to contribute to heavy utilization of the available forage, resulting in trailing and trampling damage, and is slowing potential vegetation recovery. Managing wild horse populations within the established AML would allow the primary forage plant species to return more rapidly even though vegetation conditions may never be able to return to their potential.
Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions
Livestock grazing is expected to continue at similar stocking rates. Cumulatively over the next 5-15 year period, continuing to manage wild horses within the established AML range would result in improved vegetation condition (i.e. forage availability and quantity), which in turn would positively impact vegetation and other habitat resources.
Under the No Action alternative, the wild horse population would exceed 1,500 head in about two years. Heavy utilization of available forage and insufficient water would be expected. Allowing the wild horse population to continue to grow beyond this number would be likely to result in a population crash at some point during the next decade. At this point, wild horses, wildlife and livestock would not have available forage or water. All animals would experience suffering and possible death. Ecological communities and habitat resources would not be sustainable. Rangeland health would degrade, possibly below biological thresholds, making recovery unlikely if not impossible as cheat grass, medusa head, and other annuals could dominate the understory degrading ecological conditions.
5.3 Cumulative Impacts (For all affected resources analyzed in Chapter 4)
Impacts Common to Action Alternatives (1-2)
This combination of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, along with implementation of any of the action alternatives, should result in more stable wild horse populations, healthier rangelands, healthier wild horses, and fewer multiple use conflicts within the cumulative area over the short and long-term.
35
Cumulative effects from the action alternatives would include continued improvement of upland and riparian vegetation conditions, which would in turn positively impact permitted livestock, native wildlife, and wild horses populations as forage (habitat) quantity and quality is improved over the current level. Benefits from reduced wild horse populations would include fewer animals competing for limited water quantity and at limited sites.
Alternative 3. No Action: Defer Gather & Removal
Cumulative impacts would result in foregoing an opportunity to improve rangeland health and to properly manage wild horses in balance with the available water and forage. Over-utilization of vegetation and other habitat resources would occur as wild horse populations continued to increase. Wild horse populations would be expected to crash at some ecological threshold, however wild horse, livestock, and wildlife would all experience suffering and possible death as rangeland resources continued to degrade. Attainment of RMP/FMUD objectives and Standards for Rangeland Health and Wild Horse and Burro Populations would not be achieved.
6.0 MONITORING and MITIGATION MEASURES
Monitoring
The BLM Contracting Officer Representative (COR) and Project Inspectors (PIs) assigned to the gather would be responsible for insuring contract personnel abide by contract specifications and SOPs. Ongoing rangeland, riparian, and wild horse monitoring would continue, including periodic aerial population survey counts.
Should the Proposed Action gather efficiency exceed 80% and wild horses are released: fertility control monitoring would be conducted in accordance with the SOP’s outlined in Appendix B; and, monitoring the herd’s social behavior would be incorporated into routine monitoring.
The objective of this additional monitoring would be to determine if additional studs form bachelor bands or are more aggressive in competing with breeding bands for forage and water than at present.
7.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Public hearings are held annually on a state-wide basis regarding the use of helicopters and motorized vehicles to capture wild horses (or burros). During these meetings, the public is given the opportunity to present new information and to voice any concerns regarding the use of these methods to capture wild horses (or burros). The Nevada BLM State Office held a meeting on May 20, 2009; several written comments were entered into the record for this hearing. Specific concerns included: (1) the use of helicopters and motorized vehicles is inhumane and results in injury or death to significant numbers of wild horses and burros; (2) inventory methods using helicopters and fixed wing aircraft; (3) reported reproduction and mortality rates; (4) providing the public with pertinent information regarding gather plans at site-specific locations; (5) statistics or statements relating to impacts of helicopter driving, distances, terrain, etc. on wild burro herds; (6) studies on impacts to wild horses and burros on the use of helicopters and helicopter driving during gather. Standard Operating Procedures were reviewed in response to these concerns and no changes to the SOPs were indicated based on this review.
36
Since 2004, BLM Nevada has gathered just over 26,000 excess animals. Of these, mortality has averaged only 0.5% which is very low when handling wild animals. Another 0.6%of the animals captured were humanely euthanized due to pre-existing conditions and in accordance with BLM policy. This data affirms that the use of helicopters and motorized vehicles has proven to be a safe, humane, effective and practical means for the gather and removal of excess wild horses and burros from the range. BLM also avoids gathering wild horses prior to or during the peak foaling season and does not conduct helicopter removals of wild horses during March 1 through June 30.
Consultation between the BLM, State of Nevada Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses and the Sierra Club was conducted in November 2008. These groups toured the area proposed for the gather and jointly concurred that the gather was needed. The conclusion of the group was that the gather was needed to protect the natural resources as well as the wild horses.
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Jerome Fox Wild Horse and Burro Specialist (Lead)
Alan Shepherd Wild Horse & Burro Program Lead (Nevada)
Kathy Ataman Archaeologist
Roger Farschon Ecologist
Greg Lynch Fisheries Biologist
Lynn Ricci Environmental Coordinator
Jill Nannenga Rangeland Management Specialist (Range)
Derek Messmer Rangeland Management Specialist (Weeds)
Mike Zielinski Soil Scientist
Sandi Gracia Backcountry/Wilderness Specialist
Dave Lefevre Recreation
9.0 REFERENCES
Bengston, Ginny. 2002. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field Office Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Final Ethnographic Assessment. Benston Consulting. Sun Valley, Nevada.
Bradley, P.V. et. al. Editors. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, Nevada. 216 pp.
Cothran, E.G. 2004. Genetic Analysis of the North Stillwater, NV feral horse herd. Dept. of Veterinary Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Floyd, Ted et al. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Nevada. University of Nevada Press,
Reno Nevada.
Ganskopp, D.C. 1983. Habitat use and Spatial Interactions of Cattle, Wild Horses, Mule deer, and California Bighorn Sheep in the Owyhee Breaks of Southeast Oregon. PhD Dissertation, Oregon State University.
37
Ganskopp, D.C. and M. Vavra. 1986. Habitat Use by Feral Horses in the Northern Sagebrush Steppe. Journal of Range Management 39(3):207-211.
Ganskopp, D.C. and M. Vavra. 1987. Slope Use by cattle, feral horses, deer, and bighorn sheep. Northwest Science, 61(2):74-80.
Great Basin Bird Observatory. 2003. Nevada Bird Count. A habitat-based monitoring program for breeding birds of Nevada. Instruction package and protocol for point count surveys.
Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. Journal of Range Management. 33:136-142.
Larrucea, Eveline S. 2007. Bureau of Land Management Surprise Field Office Pygmy Rabbit (Sylvilagus idahoensis) Survey. Unpublished report.
McGuckian Jones, Peggy. 1978. Emigrant Trails in the Black Rock Desert. Technical Report No. 6. Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.
McInnis, M.A. 1984. Ecological Relationships among Feral Horses, Cattle, and Pronghorn in Southeastern Oregon. PhD Dissertation. Oregon State University.
McInnis, M.A. and M. Vavra. 1987. Dietary relationships among feral horses, cattle, and pronghorn in southeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Mgt 40(1):60-66.
Neel, L.A. (Editor). 1999. Nevada Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan.
Nevada Department of Wildlife. March 2007. www.ndow.org
Nevada Natural Heritage Program. March 2008. www.heritage.nv.gov
NOAA. www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov
Paige, C., and S.A. Ritter. 1999. Birds in a sagebrush sea: managing sagebrush habitats for bird communities. Partners in Flight Western Working Group, Boise, ID.
Platts, W.S., and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Riparian and stream enhancement management and research in the Rocky Mountains. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:115-125.
Riddel, Francis A. 1960. Honey Lake Paiute Ethnography. Anthropological Papers 4. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.
Smith, M.A. 1986a. Impacts of Feral Horses Grazing on Rangelands: An Overview. Equine
Veterinary Science, 6(5):236-238.
Smith, M.A. 1986b. Potential Competitive Interactions Between Feral Horses and Other Grazing Animals. Equine Veterinary Science, 6(5):238-239.
38
Smith, M.A. and J.W. Waggoner, Jr., et al. 1982. Vegetation Utilization, Diets, and Estimated Dietary Quality of Horses and Cattle Grazing in the Red Desert of Westcentral Wyoming. BLM Contract No. AA851-CTO-31.
Stewart, Omer C. 1939. The Northern Paiute Bands. University of California Anthropological Records 2(3):127-149.
U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service
2006 Hydrologic Unit Coverage 5, draft GIS layer
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, Winnemucca Field Office
1982 Sonoma-Gerlach Management Framework Plan (MFP)
1997 Technical Reference 1737-14: Grazing Management for Riparian Wetland Areas
2003 BLM Nevada Migratory bird best management practices for the sagebrush biome
2005 Winnemucca Resource Management Plan Socioeconomic Report
2006a Herd Management Areas GIS layer
2006b Gather Operations GIS layer
2006c Grazing Allotments GIS layer
2006d Wilderness Study Area GIS layer
2006e Winnemucca District Boundary GIS layer
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Species list by Winnemucca Field Office Allotments.
U.S.D.I. Geologic Survey
Digital Raster Graphic (DRG) 1:250,000 topographic maps
Vavra, M. and F. Sneva. 1978. Seasonal diets of five ungulates grazing the cold desert biome.
Proceedings of the First International Rangeland Congress. Society for Range Mgt. Denver, CO.
39
Map 1. Calico Complex Wild Horse Capture Area
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
