CLAN ALPINE EMERGENCY WILD HORSE REMOVAL PLAN

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EA-NV-030-07-01

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Carson City Field Office

Renewable Resources

5665 Morgan Mill Road

Carson City, Nevada 89701

September 23, 2006

I.	BACKGROUND INFORAMTION

A. Introduction:

The Storm Cloud wildfire recently burned approximately 6,528 acres which included 5,243 acres within the Clan Alpine Herd Management Area (HMA). The most recent census, June of 2005, documented approximately 100 head of wild horses in and immediately adjacent to the area burned. As a result, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to remove these horses thereby allowing the area to naturally re-establish the native vegetation damaged by the burn.

The Clan Alpine HMA is located approximately 75 east of Fallon, NV and is approximately 314,986 acres in size. The burned area inside the HMA is located entirely in the Clan Alpine Allotment.

Wild horses in the Clan Alpine Herd Management Area (HMA) are managed under provisions of the Clan Alpine Herd Management Area Plan (HMAP; 1993). The Appropriate Management Level (AML) was set in the HMAP and ranges from 619 to 979 wild horses.

This environmental assessment (EA) tiers from and incorporates by reference appropriate portions of the Clan Alpine HMAP/Capture Plan and EA (1993). It also analyzes the impacts resulting from the emergency removal of wild horses from the Clan Alpine HMA.

The recent wildfire in the northeastern portion of the HMA has reduced the forage available for horses, livestock and wildlife within the northeastern portion of the HMA. All grazing animals will substantially impact the vigor and health of all burned vegetation in the area slowing recovery and facilitating the establishment of noxious weeds.

B. Purpose Of and Need for the Proposed Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to remove all wild horses within and around the burned area in the northeastern portion of the Clan Alpine HMA. This will allow for the recovery of the range and maintain the health of the remaining horses. Younger animals will be placed into the adoption program with the oldest animals placed in a sanctuary.

The need for the proposed action stems from the impacts to the habitat resulting from the Storm Cloud Fire (July 2006). The fire burned 6,528 acres, including 5,243 acres within the northeastern portion of the Clan Alpine HMA. Evaluation of post fire conditions in the HMA reveals that there is not enough forage to support the current population of horses, livestock and wildlife that used the burn area for all or part of their habitat. Continued grazing will impair the health and vigor of the remaining vegetation within this portion of the HMA.

In order for the native perennial grasses and other vegetation to re-establish themselves in the area affected by the burn, rest from grazing is needed. Re-establishment of native vegetation is needed to provide forage for wildlife, livestock and horses. It is also critical in the prevention of excessive soil erosion, and prevent or reduce the spread of noxious weeds. Ideally, no grazing would take place for 2 growing seasons after the fire or until fire restoration goals have been met.

Native forage grasses and other vegetation require 2 growing seasons to become established. During the establishment period they are very vulnerable to grazing. A few grazing animals can severely impact large areas comprised mostly of damaged perennial grasses and shrubs and what seedlings area produced.

C. Conformance with Land Use Plans

The proposed action described below is in conformance with the Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan of 2001, pages WHB-1-5 and the Herd Management Area Plan of 1993. This analysis was conducted under an intensive monitoring program addressing the impacts of wild horses, wildlife and livestock. This EA is a project specific refinement of the EIS and HMAP focused on the management of wild horses in the Clan Alpine HMA. These plans were developed through consultation and coordination with interested parties and were coordinated with livestock and wildlife plans.

It is also clearly consistent with the rangeland management objective, "Improve the condition of the public rangelands so as to improve productivity for all rangeland values.”

Additional environmental analyses (EAs) have been finalized over the past years which analyzed the impacts of various gather methods on wild horses, and other critical elements of the human environment. These documents include:

1.	Gather Plan/Environmental Assessment, September 1980

2.	Gather Plan/Environmental Assessment, September 1981

3.	Gather Plan/Environmental Assessment, September 1986

4.	Gather Plan/Environmental Assessment, November 1992

5.	HMAP/Gather Plan/Environmental Assessment, August, 1993

6.	Gather Plan/Environmental Assessment, February 2000

D.	Relationship to Other Environmental Documents, Statutes, Regulations

The proposed action and alternatives are in conformance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (PL 92-195 as amended); all applicable regulations at 43 CFR 4700 and policies: the Strategic Plan for the Management of Wild Horses and Burros on the Public Lands: and the Nevada BLM Revised Tactical Plan-Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros, Ensuring the Legend Lives and the Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin Area, Resource Advisory

Council Standards and Guidelines as approved by the Secretary of Interior February 12, 1997, numbers 4 and 5 state:

“4. After a range fire or other natural catastrophic event, vegetation should be returned to the native species as rapidly as possible, to afford forage and habitat for native animals. If a nurse crop is needed to protect the land from erosion, all native nurse crops should be used first.

5. Treated areas will be rested from livestock grazing for two growing seasons or until seedlings are established or the vegetative response has achieved objective levels. Wild horses and burros removed from Herd Management Areas will be restored after rehabilitation objectives have been met.”

II.	PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Action and one alternative, No Action, are analyzed within this document and impacts identified. The description of all the alternatives are given below.

Proposed Action:

The Proposed Action is to temporarily reduce the population of wild horses from the northeastern portion of the Clan Alpine HMA by approximately 100 animals. This action is necessary to restore the range adversely impacted by the Storm Cloud fire which burned 5,243 acres within the northeastern portion of the HMA. The animals would be removed in the Fall of 2006 or as soon as possible. Authority for this action is contained in the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-195) and regulations contained in 43 CFR 4720.1 and 4770.3.

Horses would be captured by the methods described in the Clan Alpine HMAP/Capture Plan and EA (1993). This and subsequent plans outlined removal procedures and are still valid. Copies of these removal plans can be obtained by contacting the Carson City Field Office.

The gather would be conducted either through use of the BLM Great Basin Wild Horse and Burro Gather Contract or by BLM crews. Multiple gather sites (traps) would be used to gather wild horses from within and outside the HMA. To the maximum extent possible, gather sites would be located in previously disturbed areas. All gather and handling activities (including gather site selections) would be conducted in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) described in Attachment 1. The helicopter drive trap gather technique would be utilized for this gather. It is estimated that two trap sites would be required to complete the gather.

As needed, a licensed Veterinarian may be on-site during gather operations to examine animals and make recommendations to the Carson City Field Office WH&B Specialists for care and

treatment of the wild horses. Consultation with a veterinarian would take place prior to euthanasia in accordance with Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2001-165.

Impounded, privately-owned animals will be handled in accordance with the Bureau of Land Management, Nevada Sate Office Instruction Memoranda NV-84-116 and NV-85-416. The younger animals would be placed into the adoption program. The older animals would be placed into a sanctuary.

Alternatives:

No action. Remove no horses.

No removal would take place. Rangeland recovery would not take place or would be slowed and the likelihood of invasive noxious weeds establishing themselves within the HMA would be increased, thus lowering the carrying capacity of the HMA. The horse population would not be maintained at a level compatible with the environment and the areas would not be in a state of thriving natural ecological balance.

III.	AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Critical Elements

The following critical elements of the human environment are not present or are not affected by the proposed action or alternatives in this EA: (specifically required by statute, regulation, executive order, etc.)

Air Quality

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Environmental Justice

Farm Lands (prime or unique)

Floodplains

Native American Religious Concerns

Paleontology

Riparian

Threatened or Endangered Animals

Threatened or Endangered Plants

Water Resources

Wastes (hazardous or solid)

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Wilderness

No impacts would occur to cultural resources as proposed trap sites and holding facilities would be inventoried prior to construction in order to avoid those areas where cultural resources exist. To the extent possible trap sites and holding faculties will be placed on previously disturbed areas. All potential sites will be surveyed prior to the construction of temporary facilities and the results of the surveys documented. Although several springs are present within the project area, the proposed action would not adversely affect Wetland/Riparian zones.

No trap sites, holding facilities or motorized vehicles would be allowed within the Clan Alpine Wilderness Study Area (WSA).

Bureau specialists have further determined that the following resources, although present in the project area, are not affected by the proposed action: forestry, geologic resources, lands, visual resources, recreation, Socio-economics and water rights.

Resources Present and Brought Forward for Analysis:

A. Wild Horses

Project Area Description

The Clan Alpine HMA is located approximately 75 east miles of Fallon, NV and is approximately 314,986 acres in size with only scattered small parcels of private land located within the HMA. Terrain varies from level valleys to steep, rugged mountains with elevations ranging from 5,000 feet at the valley bottom to 8,500 at the highest point. Much of the northeastern portion of the HMA is fenced along the northern and eastern boundaries. The burned area inside the HMA is located entirely in the Clan Alpine Allotment.

1. Gather History and Population Characteristics

Numerous gathers have been conducted over the last 25 years. The earlier gathers, prior to 1992, were gate cut with the subsequent gathers following the selective removal criteria in place at the time. A more detailed description of the wild horses and their management can be found within the Clan Alpine HMAP/Capture Plan and EA (1993).

The following chart shows the number of wild horses that were removed in the previous gathers:

Year	Number Removed

1980	565

1981	663

1986	798

1992	58

1993	61

2000	233

The last census conducted in December of 2005 documented 442 horses. Due to adverse weather conditions only one day censusing was completed which precluded a complete census, though the majority of the HMA was completed.

An estimated 100 wild horses occupy the northeastern portion of the HMA in and around the burned area. If not removed wild horses would likely remain in the burned area consuming various vegetative species which would inhibit or negate the re-establishment of the native vegetation within the HMA and would increase the risk of noxious weeds becoming established. This could suppress the carrying capacity of the area for years.

2. Livestock

There is currently one grazing permittee, Michael P. and Claudia C. Casey, within the project area running a total of 6,522 AUMs of cattle use during the spring, summer and fall season. Only a portion of these AUMS are used in the project area. Numerous range improvements are present, mainly fences, riparian exclosures and water developments.

Utilization of the burned areas by horses, livestock, and wildlife would suppress the recovery of the burned areas. This would depress the carrying capacity of the HMA thus, reducing the number of animals which can utilize the HMA. A more detailed description of the grazing system can be found in the Clan Alpine Allotment Management Plan..

3. Wildlife

Wildlife habitat is comprised largely of three generalized plant communities: the salt desert shrub community, found at lower elevations, the Wyoming sagebrush community that occupies middle elevations, and a mountain brush community at higher elevations. Wildlife species found in these habitats vary in abundance and diversity depending on the type and condition of the vegetation. Within the proposed project area, numerous species of wildlife occur. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), mountain lion (Puma concolor), coyote (Canis latrans), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) are the main game and fur bearing species present. Chukar (Alectoris chukar), morning dove (Zenaida macroura), and cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus sp) constitute the major upland game species. In addition, a variety of non-game mammals, birds, and reptiles occur within the project area.

Until the habitat has recovered species diversity within the HMA will be reduced as well as absolute numbers of individuals (plants and animals). A more detailed description of the wildlife and habitat can be found in the Wildlife Habitat Management Plan.

4. Vegetation

Vegetation varies from salt desert shrub communities at lower elevations, to low and big sagebrush/grass communities at higher elevations. The lower elevations are comprised of salt tolerant plants such as bud sagebrush (Artemisia spinescens), shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia) and, baileys and black greasewood (Sarcobatus spp.). Mid-elevations and alluvial fans consist of Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate wyomingensis) or low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), with an understory of Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa secunda), bottlebrush squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix), and Thurber’s needlegrass (Stipa thurberiana). Within the mid and higher elevations, there is an occurrence of Utah Juniper (Juniperous osteosperma). The higher elevation sites are comprised of mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate vaseyana),, and also support mountain browse species that include serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), snowberry (Symphoriocarpos spp.), and currant (Ribes spp.).

5. Soils

The burn area is composed mostly of two soil map units of the Churchill Co. Soil Survey:

#193: Theon-Mirkwood-Rock Outcrop association, 30-50% slopes.

#300: Old Camp-Colbar-Rock Outcrop association, 30-50% slopes.

With the exception of the Colbar soil, which is moderately deep, most of the other soils are very shallow and well drained. Erosion hazard and runoff are not described in the soil survey, however runoff on very shallow soils with steep slopes should be considered to be rapid, with moderate to severe erosion hazards depending on the soil surface textures and percentage of surficial coarse fragments. Surface textures range from extremely stony or cobbley loams to very gravelly sandy loams. Average annual precipitation ranges from 6 to 9 inches.

Ecological site descriptions assigned to the various soil series are as follows:

Colbar: NV27-51

Mirkwood: NV27-17

Old Camp: NV27-7

Theon: NV27-19

6. Noxious Weeds

A complete noxious weed survey including invasive and non-native species has not been completed in the project area. Salt Cedar infestations are not uncommon in the area, and several are known within the project area.

7. Migratory Birds

Common migratory birds which may use the area as habitat include various songbirds, blue birds, night hawks, swallows, swifts, fly catchers, kingbirds, ravens, raptors, finches, doves, sparrows, and meadowlarks.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Scoping and Issue Identification

Bureau personnel identified by the Environmental Coordinator to have an interest or whose programs could be potentially affected by the proposed action reviewed the EA.

All individuals identified the Carson City mailing list will be sent a copy of the Capture Plan/EA. As a procedural requirement the Nevada State Clearinghouse will receive ten (10) copies of this document. Native American consultation is ongoing.

Proposed Action

Environmental Impacts

1. Wild Horses

Implementation of the proposed action would temporarily reduce the population by approximately 100 wild horses from the northeastern portion of the HMA. This would allow native vegetation to recover and become reestablished naturally by allowing rest for two growing seasons or until restoration goals are met.

Once the horses are re-established in the northeastern portion of the HMA the population would be managed as prescribed in the HMAP. The genetic diversity of the Clan Alpine HMA herd is discussed in the Clan Alpine HMAP (1993). Genetic diversity within the herd is deemed sufficient to ensure maintenance of a healthy wild horse populations in the HMA after implementation of the proposed action.

2. Livestock

In response to the wild land fire and loss of forage all livestock would be removed from the northeastern portion of the HMA. To allow for the reestablishment of vegetation within the HMA the actual burn and surrounding areas would be rested for two growing seasons before livestock use is allowed to resume. Implementation of the proposed action, and removal of approximately 100 wild horses from the HMA, would facilitate the reestablishment of vegetation through natural processes outlined in BLM fire rehabilitation plans. These actions are expected to result in productive range conditions that would provide forage for livestock after two growing seasons. Livestock operations are expected to indirectly benefit from implementation of the proposed action which is anticipated to facilitate range recovery.

3. Wildlife

Implementation of the proposed action would benefit both large and small wildlife species. All wildlife species require specific habitats. For the majority of wildlife species vegetation comprises an essential component. The proposed action is expected to expedite reestablishment of vegetation communities which will benefit wildlife by providing adequate habitat components such as cover and forage.

4. Vegetation

Implementation of the proposed action is expected to facilitate vegetation recovery resulting from natural processes by reducing grazing pressure on remaining plant communities and on young plants emerging in burned areas. Reduced grazing pressure on plants established in burned areas is expected to allow these plants to develop sufficiently so they can once again provide a renewable forage base for horses, livestock and wildlife. Implementation of the proposed action is expected to provide direct benefits to plant communities within the HMA

5. Soils

Soil erosion is expected to be reduced by implementation of the proposed action. Reestablishment of stable plant communities is the key to reducing soil erosion on what is now burned over barren areas. Roots help hold soil in place while vegetative cover disperses and reduces the impacts of raindrops on the soils. The proposed action is expected to accelerate recovery of plant communities which will in turn reduce soil erosion in burned areas. The proposed action is indirectly beneficial to soils.

6. Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds often establish themselves in disturbed sites such as burned areas. Successful establishment of noxious weeds is a function of seed availability and the duration of time a suitable site remains in existence. Implementation of the proposed action is expected to facilitate reestablishment of plant communities in the burned areas of the HMA. Rapid establishment of such a community will minimize areas available for colonization by noxious weeds.

Migratory Birds

Migratory birds would benefit from the proposed action as habitat within the burned area would become reestablished sooner with a decreased risk of establishment of noxious weeds.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

1. Wild Horses

Implementation of the no action alternative would be detrimental to the wild horse habitat and population remaining in the northeastern portion of the HMA. Implementation of the no action alternative is expected to halt or delay the reestablishment and recovery of the vegetation communities on burned areas of the HMA and adversely impact existing vegetation in the unburned areas by concentrating grazing use on those areas. When seedlings sprout or green up

occurs on perennials in the burned areas the grazing by horses would halt or slow the recovery of the HMA negating or impairing recovery efforts and lowering the overall carrying capacity.

2. Livestock

No short term direct impacts to livestock are expected to result from implementation of the no action alternative. All livestock would not be removed from the northeastern portion of the HMA. They would have unrestricted use of the area. Implementation of the no action alternative is expected to halt or delay the reestablishment and recovery of the vegetation communities on burned areas of the HMA and adversely impact existing vegetation in the unburned areas by concentrating grazing use in those areas. This would cause a direct impact on livestock operations by reducing the carrying capacity of the area.

3. Wildlife

Wildlife populations are expected to remain depressed until burned areas reestablish stable plant communities. An exception to this would be small species that are adapted to early seral stage communities. The no action alternative is expected to delay successful establishment of vegetation on burned areas and result in excessive grazing in the unburned areas. This will reduce wildlife populations in the short, mid and possibly long term.

4. Vegetation

Vegetation communities would be adversely affected by implementation of the no action alternative. Grazing pressure on unburned areas of the HMA would increase and result in detrimental levels of grazing on plants in these areas. Reestablishment of range plants in the burned areas will be adversely affected by excessive grazing use during the plants vulnerable seedling and recovery stage. The 100 horses currently in the northeastern portion of the HMA are likely to severely damage plants in the burned area through excessive grazing.

5. Soils

Excessive soil erosion would likely continue for a longer period of time under the no action alternative. Soil erosion is closely tied to the establishment of vegetation root mass and ground cover. Since the no action alternative is expected to delay or halt successful recovery and re-vegetation, accelerated soil erosion is likely to continue for a longer period of time.

6. Noxious Weeds

The no action alternative is anticipated to delay successful recovery revegetation of burned areas. This would result in fire disturbed sites remaining available for noxious weed colonization for a longer period of time than would occur under the proposed action. More noxious weed colonization would likely occur under the no action alternative.

7. Migratory Birds

Some loss of habitat would occur in the short run, if noxious weeds became established habitat loss would occur for the foreseeable future.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The proposed action would temporarily remove all wild horses from the northeastern portion of the HMA. However, wild horses would benefit from the successful reestablishment of a healthy plant community. By successfully reestablishing and maintaining a healthy plant community the HMA will support a larger healthier population of wild horses than would otherwise be possible. Thus we conclude the proposed action combined with other emergency removal actions in the Field Office area are not expected to have significant cumulative impacts to horse populations in the Field Office administrative area.

Cumulative impacts to vegetation, soils, water resources, riparian, noxious weeds, and wildlife resulting from wildfires in the Carson City Field Office area are expected to be adverse in the short term but neutral in the long term. The duration of cumulative adverse impacts to these resources is dependent on the successful reestablishment of vegetation communities on burned areas. Re-vegetation will occur through natural process. Since the proposed action is anticipated to facilitate re-vegetation in the northeastern portion of the HMA it is not expected to contribute to adverse impacts on these resources.

Since the proposed action is likely to allow the return of livestock to the HMA after 2 growing seasons it is not anticipated that the proposed action would contribute to cumulative adverse impacts to livestock grazing.

MONITORING

Vegetative monitoring will be conducted in accordance with approved fire rehabilitation plan.

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Preparers:

John Axtell - Wild Horse and Burro Project Lead

Jim Schroeder – Hydrology

Jim DeLaureal – Soils, Noxious Weeds

Jim Carter – Cultural Resources

Henry Suminski – Range

Riti Suminski – Wildlife, T&E

Terry Knight – Wilderness, Recreation

Dean Tonenna – Plant Ecology

Terri Knutson – Environmental Coordination

This plan and EA was made available or sent to all individuals or organizations on the interested public mailing list. Has been sent to the following persons and groups:

alococo@fund.org

American Horse Protection Assoc.

amhrseprot@

Andrea Lococo

Barbara Warner

Betty Kelly

Bonie Matton

Department of Administration NV State Clearinghouse

Elaine Brooks

Elnoma Reeves

jdahl@

joannem@

linebah@

mattonco@

Michael Kirk

mkirk@

msmith@muledeer.org

mustangel@

mustangs@wildhorse.nv.gov

Nevada Cattlemen’s Assoc.

Nevada Commission for the Pres. Of Wild Horses

Nevada Division of Ag.

Nevada Division of Wildlife

NV State Grazing Board

Office of Cong. Gibbons

Office of Sen. Ensign

Office of Sen. Reid

Ray Cormack

rday@muledeer.org

Rebecca Kunow

Roberta Royle

susan@nevada.humanesociety.org

tina@rci-nv.com

twc@muledeer.org

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Virginia Butte

WHOA

Wild Horses Forever

WildQuest@

VI. REFERENCES CITED

1.	Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan, 2001.

2.	Clan Alpine Herd Management Area Plan/ Capture Plan and EA 1993.

ATTACHMENT 1 – STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

A.	Methods for Humane Capture Wild Horses or Burros - Helicopter Removals with Contract

The helicopter drive trapping method employed for capture operations requires that horses be herded to a trap consisting of portable panels and on extremely rare occasions to ropers who, after roping the animal, will bring it to the trap. Gathering would be conducted by using a contractor experienced in the humane capture and handling of wild horses. The following stipulations and procedures will be followed during the contract period to ensure the welfare, safety and humane treatment of the wild horses in accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR 4700 and the Great Basin Wild Horse Gathers Capture contract.

1. Capture Methods That May Be Used in the Performance of a Helicopter Gather

Helicopter Drive Trapping

This capture method will involve driving horses into a pre-constructed trap using a helicopter. The trap is constructed of portable steel panels consisting of round pipe. Wings are constructed off the ends of the panel trap to aid in funneling horses into the trap. The wings are constructed of natural jute, (or similar netting which will not injure a horse), which is hung on either trees or long steel posts. This kind of wing forms a very effective visual barrier to the horses that they typically will not run through. When the trap is ready for use, a helicopter will start moving one band of horses at a time toward the trap and into the wings.

In heavily wooded areas, it may be necessary to use wranglers in support of the helicopter to move the horses. The helicopter will act more as a spotter for the ground crew in this situation.

The contractor shall attempt to keep bands intact except where animal health and safety become considerations, which would prevent such procedures. The contractor shall ensure that foals shall not be left behind.

At least one saddle horse shall be immediately available at the trap site to perform roping if necessary. Roping shall be done as determined by the Contracting Officers Representative (COR) or Project Inspector (PI). Under no circumstances shall animals be tied down for more than one hour.

Domestic saddle horses may also be used to assist the helicopter pilot (on the ground) during the gather operation, by having the domestic horse act as a pilot (or "Judas") horse on the ground, leading the wild horses into the trap site. Individual ground hazers and individuals on horseback may also be used to assist in the gather.

b. Helicopter Assisted Roping

Capture attempts may be accomplished by utilizing a helicopter to drive animals to ropers. Under no circumstances shall horses be tied down for more than one hour.

Roping shall be performed in such a manner that bands will remain together. Foals shall not be left behind.

2. Stipulations for Portable Corral Traps/Exclosures

Capture traps would be constructed in a fashion to minimize the potential for injury to wild horses and BLM personnel. Gates would be wired open at all unmanned trap sites, and would be left closed only when needed to hold horses inside. Trapped horses would not be held inside the traps for a period exceeding 10 hours, unless provided with feed (weed free hay) and water.

3. Contract Helicopter, Pilot and Communications

The contractor must operate in compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 91. Pilots provided by the contractor shall comply with the Contractors Federal Aviation Certificates, applicable regulations of the State in which the gather is located.

The COR/PI shall have the means to communicate with the contractors pilot at all times. If communications cannot be established, the Government will take steps as necessary to protect the welfare of the animals. The frequency(ies) used for this contract will be assigned by the COR/PI when the radio is used. The contractor shall obtain the necessary FCC licenses for the radio system.

The proper operation, service and maintenance of all contractor furnished helicopters is the responsibility of the contractor. The BLM reserves the right to remove from service pilots and helicopters which, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer or COR/PI, violate contract and FAA rules, are unsafe or otherwise unsatisfactory. In this event, the contractor will be notified in writing to furnish replacement pilots or helicopters within 48 hours of notification. The Contracting Officer or his/her representative must approve all such replacements in advance of operation.

4. Animal Handling and Care

Prior to any gathering operations, the COR/PI will provide for a pre-capture evaluation of existing conditions in the gather areas. The evaluation will include animal condition, prevailing temperatures, drought conditions, soil conditions, road conditions, and a topographic map with location of fences, other physical barriers, and acceptable trap locations in relation to animal distribution. The evaluation will determine whether the proposed activities will necessitate the presence of a veterinarian during operations. If it is determined that capture efforts necessitate the services of a veterinarian, one would be obtained before capture would proceed.

The contractor will be apprized of the all conditions and will be given instructions regarding the capture and handling of animals to ensure their health and welfare is protected.

The Authorize Officer and pilot may take a familiarization flight identifying all natural hazards (rims, canyons, winds) and man-made hazards in the area so that helicopter flight crew, ground personnel, and wild horse safety will be maximized. Aerial hazards will be recorded on the project map. No fence modifications will be made without authorization from the Authorized Officer. The contractor shall be responsible for restoration of any fence modification, which has been made.

If the route the contractor proposes to herd animals passes through a fence, opening should be large enough to allow free and safe passage. Fence material shall be rolled up and fence posts will be removed or sufficiently marked to ensure safety of the animals. The standing fence on each side of the gap will be well-flagged or covered with jute or like material.

Wings shall not be constructed out of materials injurious to animals and must be approved by the Authorized Officer.

It is the responsibility of the contractor to provide security to prevent loss, injury or death of captured animals until delivery to final destination.

Animals shall not be allowed to remain standing on trucks while not in transport for a combined period of greater than three (3) hours. Animals that are to be released back into the capture area may need to be transported back to the original trap site. This determination will be at the discretion of the COR.

Branded or privately owned animals captured during gather operations will be handled in accordance with state estray laws and existing BLM policy.

All capture activities shall incorporate the following:

a. Trap Site Selection

The Authorized Officer will insure that the pilot is fully aware of all natural and man made barriers which might restrict free movement of horses. Topography, distance, and current condition of the horses are factors that will be considered to set limits to minimize stress on horses.

Gather operations will be monitored and restricted (if necessary) to assure the physical condition of the horses is compatible with the distances and the terrain over which they must travel. Pregnant mares, mares with small foals, and other horses would be allowed to drop out of bands which are being gathered if required to protect the safety and health of the animals.

All trap and holding facility locations must be approved by the Authorized Officer prior to construction. The situation may require moving of the trap. Trap sites will be located to cause as little injury and stress to the animals, and as little damage to the natural resources of the area, as possible. Sites will be located on or near existing roads. Additional trap sites may be required, as determined by the Authorized Officer, to relieve stress to the animals caused by specific conditions at the time of the gather (i.e. dust, rocky terrain, temperatures, etc.).

Trap/Facility Requirements

All traps, wings, and holding facilities shall be constructed, maintained and operated to handle the animals in a safe and humane manner and be in accordance with the following:

1.	Traps and holding facilities shall be constructed of portable panels, the top of which shall not be less than 72 inches high for horses, and the bottom rail of which shall not be more than 12 inches from ground level.

2. All loading chute sides shall be fully covered with plywood (without holes) or like material. The loading chute shall also be a minimum of 6 feet high.

3. All runways shall be of sufficient length and height to ensure animal and wrangler safety, and may be covered with plywood, burlap, plastic snow fence or like material a minimum 1 foot to 6 feet for horses.

4. If a government furnished portable chute is used to restrain, age, or to provide additional care for animals, it shall be placed in the runway in a manner as instructed by or in concurrence with the Authorized Officer.

5. All crowding pens including the gates leading to the runways may, if necessary to prevent injuries from escape attempts, be covered with a material which prevents the animals from seeing out (plywood, burlap, snow fence etc.) and should be covered a minimum of 2 feet to 6 feet for horses.

6. When holding facilities are used, and alternate pens are necessary to separate mares with small foals, animals which will be released, sick and injured animals, and estrays from the other animals, or to facilitate sorting as to age, number, size, temperament, sex, and condition they will be constructed to minimize injury due to fighting and trampling. In some cases, the Government will require that animals be restrained for determining an animals age or for other purposes. In these instances, the Government will provide a portable restraining chute. Either segregation or temporary marking and later segregation will be at the discretion of the COR.

7. If animals are held in the traps and/or holding facilities, a continuous supply of fresh clean water at a minimum rate of 10 gallons per animal per day will be supplied. Animals held for 10 hours or more in the traps or holding facilities shall be provided good quality hay at the rate of not less than two pounds of hay per 100 pounds of estimated body weight per day.

8. Separate water troughs shall be provided at each pen where animals are being held. Water troughs shall be constructed of such material (e.g. rubber, rubber over metal) so as to avoid injury to animals.

9.	When dust conditions occur within or adjacent to the trap or holding facility, the contractor shall be required to wet down the ground with water.

5. Treatment of Injured or Sick; Disposition of Terminal Animals

The contractor shall restrain sick or injured animals if treatment is necessary. A veterinarian may be called to make a diagnosis and final determination. Destruction shall be done by the most humane method available. Authority for humane destruction of wild horses (or burros) is provided by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, Section 3(b)(2)(A), 43 CFR 4730.1, BLM Manual 4730 - Destruction of Wild Horses and Burros and Disposal of Remains, and is in accordance with BLM policy as expressed in Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2001-165.

Any captured horses that are found to have the following conditions may be humanely destroyed:

a. The animal shows a hopeless prognosis for life.

b. Suffers from a chronic or incurable disease, or serious congenital defect.

c. Requires continuous care for the relief of pain and suffering.

d. Not capable of maintaining a body condition rating of two in a normal rangeland environment.

The Authorized Officer will determine if injured animals must be destroyed and provide for destruction of such animals. The contractor may be required to dispose of the carcasses as directed by the Authorized Officer.

The carcasses of the animals that die or must be destroyed as a result of any infectious, contagious, or parasitic disease will be disposed of by burial to a depth of at least 3 feet.

The carcasses of the animals that must be destroyed as a result of age, injury, lameness, or non-contagious disease or illness will be disposed of by removing them from the capture site or holding corral and placing them in an inconspicuous location to minimize visual impacts. Carcasses will not be placed in drainages regardless of drainage size or downstream destination.

6. Motorized Equipment

All motorized equipment employed in the transportation of captured animals shall be in compliance with appropriate State and Federal laws and regulations applicable to the humane transportation of animals. The contractor shall provide the Authorized Officer with a current safety inspection (less than one year old) of all tractor/stock trailers used to transport animals to final destination.

Vehicles shall be in good repair, of adequate rated capacity, and operated so as to ensure that captured animals are transported without undue risk or injury.

Floors of vehicles, trailers, and the loading chute shall be covered and maintained with materials sufficient to prevent the animals from slipping.

Animals to be loaded and transported in any vehicle or trailer shall be as directed by the Authorized Officer and may include limitations on numbers according to age, size, sex, temperament, and animal condition.

The Authorized Officer shall consider the condition of the animals, weather conditions, type of vehicles, distance to be transported, or other factors when planning for the movement of captured animals. The Authorized Officer shall provide for any brand and/or inspection services required for the captured animals.

Communication lines will be established with personnel involved in off-loading the animals to receive feedback on how the animals arrive (condition/injury etc.). Should problems arise, gathering methods, shipping methods and/or separation of the animals will be changed in an attempt to alleviate the problems.

If the Authorized Officer determines that dust conditions are such that animals could be endangered during transportation, the contractor will be instructed to adjust speed and/or use alternate routes.

Periodic checks by the Authorized Officer will be made as animals are transported along dirt roads. If speed restrictions are in effect the Authorized Officer will at times follow and/or time trips to ensure compliance.

7. Special Stipulations

Private landowners or the proper administering agency(s) would be contacted and authorization obtained prior to setting up traps on any lands, which are not administered by BLM. Wherever possible, traps would be constructed in such a manner as to not block vehicular access on existing roads.

Traps would not be constructed so that riparian vegetation or live water is contained within them. No vehicles would be operated on riparian vegetation or on saturated soils associated with riparian/wetland areas.

Gathering would be conducted when soils are dry or frozen and conditions are optimal for safety and protection of the horses and wranglers.

Gathers would not be conducted during peak foaling season which for this gather is March 1 through June 30, to reduce the chance of injury or stress to pregnant mares or mares with young foals.

Standard operating procedures in the selection and construction of traps would avoid adverse impacts from trap selection, construction, or operation to wildlife species, including threatened, endangered, or sensitive species.

The Field Manager, Carson City Field Office, is responsible for maintaining and protecting the health and welfare of the wild horses. To ensure the contractor's compliance with the contract stipulations, the Contracting Officers Representative (COR) and the Project Inspectors (PIs), all from the Carson City Field Office will be on site. Also, the Assistant Field Manager and the Field Manager are very involved with guidance and input into this removal plan and with contract monitoring. The health and welfare of the animals is the overriding concern of the Staff.

The COR and/or PIs will constantly, through observation, evaluate the contractors ability to perform the required work in accordance with the contract stipulations. Compliance with the contract stipulations will be through issuance of written instructions to the contractor, stop work orders and default procedures should the contractor fail to perform work in accordance to the stipulations.

Prior to issuance of the "Notice to Proceed" to the contractor, the COR and PIs will inspect the equipment to be used during the contract, to insure the equipment meets or exceeds the standards contained in the contract stipulations. Prior (less than 20 days) to the start of the contact and constantly during the course of the contract the COR and/or PIs will evaluate the conditions which may cause undue stress to the animals. The factors considered will include animal condition, prevailing temperatures, drought conditions, soil conditions, topography, animal distribution, distance animals travel to water, quantity of available water and condition of roads that animals are to be transported over. These factors will be evaluated to determine if additional constraints other than those already discussed above, need to be initiated in order to safely capture and transport the animals (i.e. veterinarian present, or delay of capture operations).

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND DECISION RECORD

Clan Alpine Herd Management Area

Capture Plan and Environmental Assessment

EA-NV-030-07-01

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT:

Based on the analysis of Environmental Assessment EA-NV-030-07-01, for the Clan Alpine Capture Plan/Environmental Assessment, I have determined that the action will not have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be required.

DECISION:

After careful consideration of all comments received it is my decision to approve the action as described in the Proposed Action of EA-NV-030-07-01.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION:

Implementation of the proposed action is expected to facilitate re-vegetation and recovery of the burned area within the northeastern portion of the Clan Alpine HMA. The proposed action is necessary to achieve a thriving ecological balance and multiple use relationship. Successful re-vegetation of the burned area will have beneficial impacts on soil, water and air resources present in the area. Wildlife and riparian areas are also expected to benefit from establishment of stable plant communities. Although the proposed action is expected to have temporary, 5-6 year, impact on the number of wild horses in the northeastern portion of the Clan Alpine HMA, it will maintain the health of the wild horse herd, individual animals and the habitat for the long term.

Unavoidable impacts in the form of injuries to the horses may occur during the removal process. Death loss is not expected to exceed 1% of the horses captured at the trap site. Some stress to the horses would be associated with the capture operations, however, after adoption or placement in a sanctuary the horses become accustomed to captivity. Because the loss of animals due to accidents is low the impacts involved in the capture operation are not significant.

The decision to implement the Clan Alpine Emergency Removal Plan is in conformance with the Carson City Field Office Consolidated Resource Management Plan, and this action would restore the range to a thriving ecological balance and prevent a deterioration of the range, as analyzed in the subject EA, in accordance with Sec. 3(b) of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1333(b) (1989). This would result in better vegetative and wildlife

communities, reduced soil erosion and in the long term improve the physical condition of wild horses.

The proposed actions would not adversely impact air quality, ACECs, cultural resources, farmlands, floodplains, Native American religious concerns, T&E species, wastes, water quality, wetlands and riparian zones, wild and scenic rivers, migratory birds or wildernesses.

APPEAL PROCEDURES

Under authority provided in 43 CFR 4770.3 (c) the capture portion of this plan is effective upon issuance to allow for the immediate removal of excess wild horses from the northeastern portion of the Clan Alpine HMA. Immediate removal of wild horses in the area is necessary to restore the range to a thriving natural ecological balance and to avert the imminent overgrazing caused by excess wild horses within the northeastern portion of the HMA.

Within 30 days of receipt of this decision, you have the right of appeal to the Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the regulations at 43 CFR, Part 4, Subpart E. If an appeal is taken, you must follow the procedures outlined in the enclosed form 1842-1, Information of Taking Appeals to the Board of Land Appeals. Within 30 days after you appeal, you are required to provide a Statement of Reasons to the Board of Land Appeals and a copy to the Regional Solicitor’s Office listed in Item 3 on Form 1842-1. Please provide this office with a copy of your Statement of Reasons. Copies of your Appeal and the Statement of Reasons must also be served upon any parties adversely affected by this decision the Appellant has the burden of showing that the decision appealed from is in error.

If the appellant wishes to file a petition (request) (pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21) for a Stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of this Decision during the time that the appeal is being reviewed by the Interior Board of Land Appeals, the Petition for Stay must accompany the Notice of Appeal. A petition for a Stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards for obtaining a Stay. Copies of the Notice of Appeal and Petition for a Stay must also be submitted to the appropriate Office of the Solicitor (see 43 CFR 4.413). If the appellant requests a Stay, the appellant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a Stay should be granted.

Standards for Obtaining a Stay

Except as otherwise provided by law or by other pertinent regulation, a Petition for a Stay of a Decision pending appeal shall show sufficient justification based on the following standards:

1. The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted or denied,

2. The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the merits,

3. The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm if the stay is not granted, and

4. Whether the public interest favors granting the stay.