June

15, 2015

Paul E. Podborny
BLM Schell Field Office Manager
Via Email: blm_nv_water_canyon@blm.gov

RE: Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary Environmental
Assessment (DOI-BLM-NV-L020-2015--0014-EA)

Dear Mr. Podborny

These comments on the abovementioned Environmental Assessment (EA) are submitted on
behalf of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC).

AWHPC is dedicated to preserving the American wild horse in viable free-roaming herds for
generations to come, as part of our national heritage. Our grassroots efforts are supported by a
coalition of over 60 historic preservation, conservation, horse advocacy and animal welfare
organizations.

The information presented in these comments is endorsed by the nearly 11,000 citizens who
have submitted comments on this EA and Proposed Action, as well as the more than 19,000
citizens who signed a petition to the Northeast Nevada Great Basin Resource Advisory Council
(RAC) endorsing an alternative, more acceptable and scientifically sound PZP fertility control
program for the Water Canyon wild horses.

I. Overview

The BLM is proposing to manage a 31,000-acre sub-section of the 331,000-Antelope Herd
Management Area by restricting the number of wild horses allowed in this area, known as
Water Canyon, to just 25. At the same time, the BLM authorizes the grazing of 6,000 sheep in
the allotments that overlap the area, and livestock grazing levels have not been reduced in light
of prolonged drought conditions.

The EA outlines a management plan for the Water Canyon area that relies on roundups every
two years to remove horses and apply PZP-22 birth control. This EA was prepared in response
to a recommendation by the Northeast Nevada Great Basin Resource Council (RAC) urging BLM
to implement a pilot program using the PZP birth control vaccine to humanely manage wild
American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, PO Box 1048, Hillsborough, NC 27278,
contact@wildhorsepreservation.org

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 2

horses in this area as an alternative to removing horses from the range.

As currently written, the Pilot Project, as described in the EA, and the EA itself, are deeply
flawed. It appears that the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) Schell Field Office is using the
RAC recommendation as an excuse to perpetually remove more and more wild horses from the
range as a service to the local livestock permittee. Indeed, the EA cites lack of forage for
livestock as a reason for continuing to remove horses from this designated wild horse and
burro area.

PUT IN ABOUT SUPPORT FOR PZP BUT NOT TO MAINTAIN UNSUSTAINABLE LEVELS OF HORSES.
II. Plan is Flawed and Must Be Changed

A. AML Too Low: Current Number of Horses Must Be Maintained and Removals
Cancelled

The BLM must not restrict the number of wild horses allowed in the Water Canyon portion of
the HMA to 25-30 while at the same time authorizing over 6,000 sheep to graze this same
public land area.

1. No monitoring or scientific data is presented to support establishing a limit of 25-30 horses in
this area: The EA states on page 5 that The target management number is based on profession
[SIC] opinion of range condition, water availability and acreage comparison. The target number
also takes into account seasonal movement from the east and west during the summer and
drier winter months.

No data is presented to support the profession [SIC] opinion and no information is provided
to indicate whose profession opinion this represents. Is the professional qualified to make
this assessment? On what basis is this assessment being made? This information is lacking in
the EA, rendering the document inadequate.

2. The EA indicates on page 23 that a fence installed on the north end of Water Canyon after a
2014 wild fire will slow the movement of the horses in the area from north to south which will
almost isolate this portion from the rest of the HMA. The EA further notes on page 23 that
Horses generally reside in the northern portion of the project area due to water resources.
Water available for use by wild horses within the Water Canyon Project Area is limited to a few
perennial sources. The BLM has constructed a fence that almost isolates the wild horses in
this area from the rest of the HMA, and in particular cuts them off from primary water sources.
Instead of taking mitigating actions to ensure that the wild horses have an adequate supply of
water to maintain their numbers, the agency is using this fence as an excuse to reduce the
number of horses in the area. This is unacceptable and the BLM must take all steps necessary to
mitigate the impacts of the fence on the horses, including development of adequate and
reliable sources of water to maintain current numbers of horses.

3. The EA notes on page 32 that excessive grazing use by wild horses and ongoing drought

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 3

conditions have allowed very little forage for livestock in the Becky Springs Allotment, and on
page 34 that Under the Proposed Action, available forage for livestock would likely see an
improvement in quality and quantity over time since the wild horse population would be
gathered in increments and population growth rates would be less.

However, given that livestock grazing on BLM lands is a discretionary activity, while wild horse
and burro protection is mandated under federal law, the BLM should be seeking to make more
forage available for wild horses in this HMA rather than reducing their numbers to make more
forage available for livestock grazing.

This is particularly true given the gross disparity in forage resource allocation in the Antelope
HMA generally and the Water Canyon Area specifically.

According to the EA (page 32) the BLM allocates 6,532 Active Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of
forage for livestock in the six allotments that overlap the proposed project area, allowing nearly
6,000 sheep, as well as cattle and goats to graze in the area at various times of the year.

Incredibly, the livestock AUMs allotted in these six allotments, -which constitute less than
one-third of the HMA -- could support 544 wild horses far more than the high AML of 325
horses established by the BLM for the entire HMA!

Given the vast disparity of livestock vs. wild horses in this area, it is absurd and scientifically
unsupported to suggest that the Water Canyon Area can support just 25-30 horses.

Federal regulations (43 CFR 2710.5) authorize BLM to close appropriate areas of the public
lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock [i]f necessary to provide habitat for
wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect wild horses or
burros from disease, harassment or injury. Given the gross disparity in resource allocation in
this HMA, combined with the cost of removals and holding of horses and the fact that holding
facilities for captured mustangs and burros are full with nearly 50,000 stockpiled, the BLM must
utilize this CRF if necessary to avoid removals of horses from this area.

The BLM proposal to establish an AML of 25-30 horses in this area is unsupported by science
or data and unjustified in light of the preferential treatment of commercial livestock grazing
over federally-protected wild horses in this area. At minimum, the current number of horses
must be maintained in this area and all plans to remove horses should be cancelled.

B. Helicopters must be eliminated as an option for capturing horses.

Only bait trapping for the purpose of PZP birth control application, and/or remote darting of
horses with PZP should be utilized. The final EA and Decision Record should exclude from
consideration the use of helicopters to capture horses. Helicopter roundups, which force horses
to run for miles, are documented to cause significant stress. In helicopter drives, elderly horses,
very young foals, and sick or injured horses are stampeded along with the fit. Bait trapping is

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 4

widely acknowledged as a less traumatic and more humane capture method for both PZP
application and removals. This EA acknowledges on page 24 that water/bait trapping is low
stress in comparison to helicopter drives. The BLM Wyoming notes in its fact sheet on a bait
trapping operation in the McCullough Peaks HMA that helicopter roundups can be harder on
the animals than a bait trap. (See
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/programs/wildhorses/2013/mcpeaks.Par.0963.Fil
e.dat/Fact.pdf)

C. PZP fertility control must be utilized as an ALTERNATIVE TO (and not in addition to)
removals of wild horses from the range and ONLY BE utilized WHEN SUSTAINABLE
POPULATION NUMBERS numbers are allowed in the Water Canyon portion of the HMA.

1. The plan to reduce the population in the Water Canyon area to just 25 horses AND to treat
half of the mares with PZP is a recipe for managing this herd, which is almost isolate[d] from
the rest of the HMA due to the installation of a fence on the northern end of the project area,
to extinction. As such the plan is unacceptable.

2. PZP should only be utilized if NO removals take place, allowing the wild horse population to
increase to more sustainable levels before the vaccine begins to impact population growth
rates. No information is presented in the EA to predict the impacts to this herd of reducing its
number to a drastically low level, including on the genetic health of this population, which is
almost isolated from the rest of the Antelope wild horse population.

3. A sustainable AML for the Water Canyon population must be established and livestock
grazing must be reduced accordingly in this area pursuant to 43 CRF 2710.5 and BLMs adaptive
management policy.

4. All plans to remove wild horses, as part of this fertility control program, should be
eliminated. BLM holding facilities are full with nearly 50,000 wild horses stockpiled, at a cost to
taxpayers of nearly $50 million annually. Recently, the BLM estimated that every horse
removed from the range and not adopted will cost taxpayers nearly $46,252 (Attachment 1)
over the life of the horse. Given the BLMs backlog of adoptable horses (as of April 2015, there
are 16,670 wild horses in short-term holding facilities in the adoption pipeline see
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/wild_horse
s_and_burros/statistics_and_maps/holding__adoption.Par.64250.File.dat/Facility%20Report%2
0FY-2015_Mar%20and%20Apr_For%20Web.pdf), the BLMs plan to remove an estimated 41
horses from this HMA could cost taxpayers $1.9 million dollars, excluding the costs of
capturing them in the first place! This alone is reason enough to scrap any plans to remove
wild horses from the Water Canyon Area.

D. Use of native PZP via remote darting or darting in conjunction with bait/water
trapping should not be eliminated from consideration.

The Water Canyon area offers the possibility of a community-based approach to wild horse

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 5

management, given the presence of former RAC member Jeanne Nations, who owns a ranch in
this area. Ms. Nations is the individual who proposed the PZP pilot program as an alternative to
removals, and she is willing to become certified to dart horses with the PZP vaccine. Ms. Nation
has extensive knowledge and photographic documentation of wild horses in this area. AWHPC
fully endorses Ms. Nations proposal, as did 19,333 of our supporters who signed a petition in
support of the plan. AWHPC stands ready to support Ms. Nations efforts and proposal in any
way possible.

Its important to note that BLM is successfully managing numerous wild horse populations with
PZP delivered via darting, including in the Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range (MT/WY), the
McCullough Peaks HMA (WY), the Little Book Cliffs HMA (CO), Sand Wash Basin (CO), among
others, and is beginning programs in several other areas where horses are well known to area
residents and advocates, including the Onaqui HMA in Utah. The Water Canyon wild horses are
an excellent population for this model of wild horse management, given Ms. Nations
knowledge of this herd. This model should be seriously considered in the final EA and not
dismissed from consideration, as in the Preliminary EA on which these comments are based.

E. Alternative B Should Be Eliminated from Consideration

GonaCon is an experimental fertility control vaccine that interferes with the production of
reproductive hormones, which drive natural behaviors in wild horses. Therefore, GonaCon will
alter natural behaviors and therefore have significant negative impacts on wild horses. The
National Academy of Sciences concluded that Further studies of its behavioral effects are
needed before GonaCon is used by the BLM. (See attachment 2) Therefore this experimental
fertility control drug is not appropriate for field use and should be dropped from consideration.

III. No Valid Excess Determination Made to Justify Removal of Wild Horses

Removal of 41 wild horses will not restore the Thriving Natural Ecological Balance (TNEB) in this
area, as required by law. The Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Wild Horse Act)
states clearly that excess determination is a two-step process the BLM must determine, first,
that an overpopulation exists, and second, that it is necessary to remove horses in order to
maintain a thriving natural ecological balance (TNEB). Here, the largest threat to TNEB is
livestock, which vastly outnumber wild horses in this area (thousands of sheep grazing vs. a
relative handful of wild horses. Indeed livestock are present in this area year round, and
livestock grazing levels have not been reduced despite prolonged drought conditions. No
evidence has been presented to document that wild horses, as opposed to massive livestock
grazing, threaten the TNEB of this area, nor has any evidence been presented to support the
claim that the removal of 41 horses as opposed to the reduction in massive sheep grazing
levels -- will restore the areas TNEB.

III. EA is Inadequate

A. Lack of Specificity

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 6

The EA does not describe the plan with enough specificity and certainty to allow for adequate
analysis of its impacts. It leaves open the possibility of helicopter roundups and use of
GonaCon, but the impacts of these actions are not adequately analyzed.


B. FULL RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES NOT ANALYZED

Instead of analyzing the full range of alternatives to the proposed action, as required by NEPA,
BLM rejected viable alternatives including:

1. Eliminating removals, and remote darting horses in combination with bait trapping and
darting with native PZP, which is less expensive than PZP-22. This is the alternative that
was presented by Ms. Nations and endorsed by the RAC and it should be considered
seriously in the EA and implemented in the DR for the reasons explained in Section II D
above.

2. Reduction of livestock grazing to avert any wild horse removals. With holding facilities
full and every horse removed and not adopted costing taxpayers nearly $50,000
(Attachment 1), this is a viable and cost-effective alternative that must not be dismissed.
The cost-savings realized by reductions in taxpayer-subsidized livestock grazing make
this alternative even more desirable (Attachment 3) Public opinion polls document that
the public strongly supports wild horse preservation on public lands, while support for
livestock grazing on public lands Is minimal. (Attachment 4). The National Academy of
Sciences (Attachment 2) affirmed the importance of social preference in wild horse and
burro management: Horse and burro management and control strategies cannot be
based on biological or cost considerations alone; management should engage interested
and affected parties and also be responsive to public attitudes and preferences.

The BLMs preferential treatment of discretionary livestock grazing versus its mandatory
duty to protect wild horses is on full display in the Water Canyon area, where 6,000
sheep are authorized to graze in allotments that overlap the project area, but the BLM
wants to allow just 25 horses. The final EA must consider an alternative to reduce sheep
grazing in this area to allow for a higher AML for this area.

This alternative is not outside the scope of analysis. Federal regulation 43 CFR
4710.5 Closure to livestock grazing authorizes BLM to close appropriate areas of the
public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock [i]f necessary to
provide habitat for wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to
protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment or injury. BLM typically states
that the agency utilizes this regulation only in cases of emergency, but nothing in it
limits use to emergency situations. Further, a fiscal emergency does exist due to the fact
that wild horse holding facilities are at capacity and consuming the majority of the
BLMs wild horse and burro program budget. Leaving horses on the range and making

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 7

downward adjustments to taxpayer-subsidized livestock grazing levels is clearly the

most cost-effective option. This regulation can be utilized as a part of the management
decision analyzed by the EA under the BLMs agency discretion to deal with an
overpopulation of horses in various manners. The EAs rejection of this alternative
renders the document inadequate.

3. Range management measures, including development of stable water sources, to
mitigate the installation of a fence that almost isolates the wild horses in the Water
Canyon area and cuts them off from the northern part of the HMA where important
water sources are located. Addressing the water issue would eliminate one of the
reasons that BLM is using to justify the reduction of wild horse numbers in the Water
Canyon area.

C. IMPACTS ANALYSIS INADEQUATE:

NEPA requires the BLM to take a hard look at the anticipated environmental and cumulative
impacts of the proposed actions. As part of its NEPA analysis, the BLM must take the hard look
mandated by Congress, by evaluating the unique resources that will be impacted by the
proposed actions.

1. Impacts From Livestock Grazing

As disclosed in the EA, sheep vastly outnumber wild horses in this area. The EA fails to provide
any evidence to support the claim that wild horses, not the vastly larger number of livestock are
responsible for this damage. In addition, the EA fails to consider the different ways that wild
horses and sheep utilize the range and the different impacts that result.

2. Economic Impacts not addressed.

Despite scoping comments requesting the EA analyze economic impacts of the proposed action,
the EA fails to do so. As stated above, the BLM now estimates each horse removed from the
range and not adopted costs taxpayers $46,250 (reference provided in AWHPCs scoping
comments). The EA failed to fully disclose and analyze the true costs of the proposed action
which now calls for removing 419 horses over 3 years from this HA for a cost of more than $19
million over the lives of the horses. The EA also fails to analyze the cost savings that could be
realized by leaving horses on the range and reducing publicly-subsidized livestock grazing in the
HA. The cost of public lands grazing is detailed in the attached Center for Biological Diversity
report. (Attachment 3)

3. Social Impacts not addressed

The American public has a deep and passionate connection to wild horses. As the Wild Horse
Act recognizes wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and
pioneer spirit of the west 16 U.S.C. 1331. The BLM should consider the social impacts of the

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 8

proposed action to reduce the population of wild horses in the Water Canyon area to just 25,
while continuing to allow thousands of sheep to graze on these public lands. NEPA requires
federal agencies to consider environmental effects that include, among others, impacts on
social, cultural, and economic resources, as well as natural resources. Thus the BLM must
consider both legal and social factors and impacts, in making land use decisions, such as setting
and maintenance of AML and grazing allocations. This was highlighted in a 1982 National
Academy of Sciences/National Research Council report on the BLMs wild horse and burro
program:

Attitudes and values that influence and direct public priorities regarding the size,
distribution, and condition of horse herds, as well as their accessibility to public viewing
and study, must be an important factor in the determination of what constitutes excess
numbers of animals in any area . . . [A]n otherwise satisfactory population level may be
controversial or unacceptable if the strategy for achieving it is not appropriately
responsive to public attitudes and values. . . . Biologically, the area may be able to
support 500 cattle and 500 horses, and may be carrying them. But if the weight of public
opinion calls for 1,000 horses, the area can be said in this context to have an excess of
500 cattle. For these reasons, the term excess has both biological and social
components. In the above example, biological excess constitutes any number of animals,
regardless of which class above 1,000. Social excess depends on management policies,
legal issues, and prevailing public preference..

The importance of social considerations was reaffirmed in the NAS report of 2013. Here the
public opposition to the BLMs plan to remove an estimated 41 horses from this area and then
to treat the remaining mares with PZP fertility control is evidenced by the nearly 11,000 citizens
who have submitted public comments on this EA and the more than 19,000 citizens who signed
a petition endorsing the recommended pilot PZP program, which involved managing wild
horses on the range with PZP in order to eliminate the need for removals. The petition was
presented to the Northeast Nevada Great Basin RAC at its October 2014 meeting. The number
of public comments and petition signatures received by the BLM opposing the current
proposed action and endorsing an alternative PZP pilot program MUST BE reported in the final
EA.

Finally, the EA must consider the social factors that play a role in land use decisions and
management policies, and it must adequately consider the BLMs authority to modify land use
decisions, such as wild horse AMLs and livestock grazing allocations through a variety of tools,
including the agencys adaptive management strategy as well as agency regulations. Clearly, the
prevailing public preference supports protection of wild horses on public lands, while a minority
wants to ensure that public lands are available for livestock grazing.

D. Information Omitted from the EA, Rendering it Inadequate

1. NAS findings & recommendations: The EA fails to incorporate the findings of the NAS
recent review of the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program, and its June 2013 report,

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 9

Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward.
The BLM has cherry picked the findings of this report, mentioning only the finding that
agency wild horse census data likely under-reports wild horse numbers, while omitting
entirely the other findings that were highly critical of the BLMs program, including:

- Current management approach is fueling high population growth rates.
- Appropriate Management Levels lack scientific basis, transparency and equity.
- Using fertility control is more cost effective over the long run than continuing to
remove horses from the range.
- Only acceptable and approved fertility control method currently available
without further research is PZP.
- BLM should engage with the public in ways that allow public input to influence
agency decisions, develop an iterative process between public deliberation and
scientific discovery, and co-design the participatory process with representatives
of the public.

2. Monitoring data to justify the establishment of such a low AML.

No monitoring data is presented to document the impacts of wild horses or to explain how BLM
delineates impacts from a relative few wild horses from the impacts of vastly larger numbers of
livestock in the area.

No information is provided regarding the rangeland conditions of the allotments that overlap
the project area, how many of these allotments are failing to meet rangeland health standards,
and what the causes of these failures to meet standards are.

3. No modeling or genetic data to predict impacts of proposed action on the wild horses of
the area.

In conclusion, the EA is inadequate because it failed to analyze a reasonable range of
alternatives as required by NEPA and instead analyzed a foregone conclusion the removal of
horses via helicopter drive, bait and water trapping from the HA. The only other alternative
analyzed the extreme sex ratio skewing as a mechanism for total elimination was not
reasonable or scientifically supported. All other reasonable alternatives were rejected. In
addition, the Impacts Analysis was woefully inadequate and skewed toward analyzing the
impacts of wild horses on ranchers and hunters, constituencies to which the BLM caters, while
completely failing to analyze the impacts to the general public, which supports wild horse
preservation; recreational users of the public lands who enjoy wild horse watching in the West
Douglas HA; and to the American taxpayers who are being asked to foot the bill for this
expensive roundup, removal and stockpiling of horses as well as for the continued publicly-
subsidized livestock grazing that the horse removal is being undertaken to increase.

For all the reasons stated above, AWHPC opposes the Proposed Action and concludes that the
EA is inadequate. For all of these reasons, the BLM must scrap this current plan and EA and go

AWHPC comments on Water Canyon Wild Horse Growth Suppression Pilot Program Preliminary EA
June 14, 2015
Page 10

back to the drawing board to come up with a pilot program that more closely aligns with the
RAC recommendation and with best available science, and an EA that fully analyzes all impacts
and alternatives to this plan.


Sincerely,






Suzanne Roy, Director
sroy@wildhorsepreservation.org
919-697-9389


Attachment 1: BLM Comparative Cost Between Adopted and Unadopted Horses

Attachment 2: Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way
Forward, National Academy of Sciences, June 2013.

Attachment 3: Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on Americas
Public Lands, Center for Biological Diversity, 2014.

Attachment 4: National Polls on Attitudes toward Wild Horse Protection and Uses of Public
Lands.