Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The types of potential impacts to wild horses under the various alternatives are similar. However, the extent and intensity of impacts would vary by alternative. Therefore, discussions for individual alternatives describe impacts to wild horses from surface-disturbing activities, minerals development, ROW development, motorized vehicle use, recreation, livestock grazing, special designations, fire and fuels management, and proactive management actions.

Managing HMAs to be consistent with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N) results in adverse and beneficial long-term impacts to wild horses. Fencing to improve livestock grazing distribution would affect the movement of wild horses and would affect their overall free-roaming nature. Water developments may improve the distribution of wild horses in each HMA. Conformance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands in upland areas would result in improved plant vigor, production, and diversity of species available as forage, which would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses.

Increased incidence of drought and associated increases in wildfire and reductions in the availability of water from climate change may result in long-term adverse impacts to wild horses. See the climate change section at the end of this chapter for more information regarding potential impacts from climate change.

Management that decreases adverse impacts to water quality, watersheds, and soils, such as avoiding or prohibiting surface disturbance near water or on slopes, maintaining watershed improvement projects, and using BMPs to reduce runoff, soil erosion, and sediment yield to retain water on landscapes would result in long-term benefits to wild horses. Management of resources that enhance habitat and forage production would contribute to habitat health and the overall health of horses.

Under all alternatives, the following Herd Areas would not be managed for wild horses: Sand Draw (13,743 acres), Zimmerman Springs (11,518 acres), Alkali Spring Creek (2,584 acres), Foster Gulch (134,222 acres), and North Shoshone (19,233 acres). Analysis for the previous RMPs determined that managing wild horses in these Herd Areas resulted in management issues or conflicts that were most appropriately resolved by the removal of wild horses. These decisions and findings remain valid because the resource conditions have not changed; therefore, the continued exclusion of wild horses from these areas results in beneficial impacts to wild horse management.

Managing the initial appropriate management level of wild horses in the Fifteenmile HMA (70 to 160 breeding adults) and the McCullough Peaks HMA (70 to 140 breeding adults) to be adjusted as necessary based upon monitoring would result in beneficial long-term impacts to wild horses from maintaining genetic viability in the HMAs. Allowing free movement of herds in HMAs would further increase the genetic viability of wild horse populations in HMAs. Employing selective removal criteria in accordance with current national policies during periodic gathers to increase the prevalence of desired genetic characteristics and avoid genetic depression would result in long-term benefits to wild horses by increasing long-term health and genetic viability.

Considering the use of natural and artificial population control measures, as needed, to maintain the populations of wild horses in the initial appropriate management levels may result in long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses by improving health of populations and facilitating effective strategies for managing wild horses and their habitat.

Basing future adjustments to appropriate management levels in the HMAs on monitoring and multiple use considerations through development of and/or revisions to HMA Plans would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wild horses by providing an appropriate review of herd objectives and conditions before forage allocations are made.

The use of certified weed-free forage supplements would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by decreasing the potential for invasive species establishment and spread that would compete with native vegetation and lead to losses in forage. The use of forage supplements would also reduce competition for food sources in times of drought between wild horses and other wildlife.

Maintaining up-to-date Herd Gathering Plans and emphasizing the gathering of wild horses that move outside HMAs or onto private lands would result in overall beneficial impacts to management of the wild horses program within the context of multiple use. A strategic and reasoned approach to gathering wild horses would result in more effective and efficient gathering activities. Gathering excess wild horses would also result in reduced competition for resources (e.g., forage, water, and habitat) which may increase the health and viability of the horses remaining within the initial appropriate management level.

Special designations may result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by limiting impacts to resources (e.g., soil, water, and vegetation) that would affect wild horses. Under all alternatives, HMAs overlap with WSAs. Managed to be consistent with the IMP activities that would adversely impact resource uses may be limited or prohibited in WSAs. These limitations would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses in the HMAs, except that new water development or other projects to benefit wild horses would likely be precluded from construction in WSAs.

Alternative A

Surface Disturbance

Surface disturbance affects wild horses both directly and indirectly. The severity of impacts to wild horses from surface disturbance depends on the location of the surface disturbance. Disturbance in HMAs would more directly affect wild horses. The location of surface disturbance projected in Appendix T has not been determined. However, land use allocations under each alternative may affect the location of surface disturbance. Land use allocations by alternative in each HMA are summarized in Table 4–10.

Source: BLM 2009a

Under Alternative A, 28,392 acres (16 percent) of HMAs are within WSAs, which will limit adverse impacts to HMAs from surface-disturbing activities. Surface disturbance and the removal of vegetation would directly limit the available forage for wild horses and other grazing animals and, without appropriate reclamation or rehabilitation, may also lead to the establishment and spread of invasive species, potentially contributing to forage reduction. Reductions in forage would impact wild horses by increasing competition between livestock and other wildlife.

Resource Uses

Management actions for minerals would result in both short-term and long-term impacts to wild horses. Mining activity would result in both short-term and long-term surface disturbance and loss of vegetation, which would reduce available forage. Construction and operation of mineral facilities and infrastructure would also displace horses and prevent movement in certain circumstances (e.g., linear infrastructure such as aboveground pipelines, transmission lines, and roads). Increased human presence and activity associated with mining may also reduce the wild and free-roaming nature of the horses.

Untreated invasive weeds that outcompete native vegetation and grasses may reduce available forage for wild horses. Treatments and reductions in invasive weeds may displace wild horses and reduce forage in the short term, but would reduce competition with native vegetation and increase available forage for wild horses in the long term. Under Alternative A, there would be beneficial impacts from treatments of invasive species on approximately 2,000 acres.

Management of ROWs would result in short- and long-term adverse impacts to wild horses. Wild horses would be displaced in the short term during construction activities and may be displaced in the long term depending on the size and activity level associated with ongoing operations on the ROW. The development of ROWs would also increase human activity and may result in avoidance behavior of wild horses, affecting access to resources and additional energy expenditure. Construction of ROWs and associated surface disturbance would result in short-term impacts to wild horses by removing forage. Successful reclamation of surface disturbance would reduce the potential for long-term loss of forage associated with ROW development. However, permanent (or long-term) facilities and infrastructure would still result in long-term surface disturbance that would reduce overall forage. Developing new ROWs in or adjacent to disturbed areas associated with existing ROWs or high traffic gravel roads or highways would reduce impacts to wild horses from the development of new ROWs. Alternative A has the most area open to ROW development in the Fifteenmile and McCullough Peaks HMAs (Table 4-10).

Management for travel and transportation would result in both short- and long-term impacts to wild horses. Travel designations that permit motorized vehicle use may disturb wild horses and result in short-term displacement when activity is occurring. In areas of frequent motorized vehicle use, wild horses may adjust behavior to adapt to human activity and noise, which may affect their wild and free-roaming nature and has been observed in the McCullough Peaks HMA. Areas open to cross-country motorized travel may reduce available vegetation and forage for wild horses; however, no areas in HMAs are completely open to cross-country motorized travel under any of the alternatives. Less than half of the area in HMAs is limited to designated roads and trails (Table 4-10). Limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails would limit adverse impacts to wild horses by restricting motorized access to help maintain their overall free-roaming and wild nature and to minimize disturbance.

Recreation management under Alternative A would result in localized short-term impacts to wild horses. Recreational activities may result in the temporary disturbance of horses from recreational wild horse viewing, hiking, hunting, camping, and other activities.

Livestock grazing management would result in adverse and beneficial impacts to wild horses. Impacts of livestock grazing on wild horses depend on the location, timing, intensity, duration, and frequency of grazing. Livestock grazing management results in the maintenance or improvement of range conditions as directed by the Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for the Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming (Appendix N). Range improvements associated with livestock such as springs, wells, and reservoirs would also result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by increasing the availability of water. Conversely, fences constructed for range improvements may cause adverse impacts to wild horses by preventing herd movement and access to resources, necessitating additional management actions to open gates to allow horse movement. Livestock grazing may also result in competition for forage, water, and habitat with wild horses resulting in adverse impacts during periods of drought. Drought conditions can exacerbate conflicts between wild horses and livestock management relating to water and forage availability on rangelands and in HMAs. These impacts would occur only in the portions of HMAs managed as open to livestock grazing. Under Alternative A, over 99 percent of HMAs are open to livestock grazing (Table 4-10).

Special Designations

Management for regionally important prehistoric and historic trails (i.e., Other Historic Trails) would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses. The Bridger Trail passes through the eastern portion of the McCullough Peaks HMA. Restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, ROW development, and motorized vehicle use on and in the vicinity of the trail would result in beneficial impacts by reducing the potential for activities that would decrease forage and may disturb or displace wild horses.

Resources

Fire and fuels management would result in both adverse and beneficial impacts to wild horses. Management that increases the occurrence and spread of wildland fires in the short term, such as restrictions on fire suppression activities, would result in temporary displacement of wild horses and short-term reductions in available forage. However, fires of the appropriate intensity would improve forage production in the long term and result in vegetative communities with increased diversity, cover, and age class. Burned areas may also require fencing during stabilization and rehabilitation, which may temporarily decrease the movement of wild horses. Due to the short-term impact of these fences, they are not expected to affect the long-term genetic variability of wild horses.

Fire suppression activities, such as firebreaks and staging areas for suppression, would also result in short-term loss of forage. These impacts are expected to be minor, considering the amount of suppression activities and localized disturbance, compared to the size of the Planning Area and HMAs. However, the firebreaks historically have resulted in increased road use, which may fragment wild horse habitat. Any fire suppression activities in or near HMAs would increase short-term impacts to wild horses.

Mechanical fuels treatments, prescribed fire, and other fuels reduction activities may result in short- and long-term impacts to wild horses. However, most HMAs do not have a history of wildfires, and the likelihood of these areas receiving fuels treatments or being susceptible to wildfires is low. In the short term, any fuels reduction treatment that does occur may temporarily displace wild horses from localized areas. In the long term, any fuels reduction activities that help return fire to locations in the HMAs where it historically facilitated ecosystem health would benefit wild horses through improved forage production and vegetative diversity.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative A, the McCullough Peaks HMA would be maintained at about 103,863 acres and the Fifteenmile HMA at 70,524 acres (Map 36). Providing opportunities for the public to view wild horses in the McCullough Peaks and Fifteenmile HMAs may result in both adverse and beneficial impacts to wild horses. Increased human presence may adversely impact wild horses by acclimating horses to human presence and reducing their wild, free-roaming nature. Increases in foal mortality due to foal abandonments and increased risk of injuries to humans would result as horses continue to be acclimated to humans. However, increasing public interest in wild horses may result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by heightening awareness of the wild horse program and public opportunities to adopt excess horses removed from the range. Adoption activities may result in public participation in and support for the wild horse management program and long-term management activities.

SRPs in the HMAs would result in impacts similar to those described above for providing opportunities for public viewing of wild horses. However, these impacts may be greater due to the closer proximity and larger scale of activities associated with SRPs, camps, events, activities, and an increase in the number of visitor use days. When SRP holders use horses, additional risks can result from wild stallions approaching domesticated mares that are in estrus (in season). In large groups, domesticated horses may also escape and join bands of wild horses; the SRP holder is responsible for any costs associated with the collection of their horses. Additional impacts would result from the introduction of parasites and diseases brought into the HMA by domestic horses.

Evaluating and potentially allowing fences in the McCullough Peaks HMA on a case-by-case basis may result in beneficial and adverse impacts to wild horses. Fences may help achieve healthier rangelands by allowing for rotational livestock grazing. Any fence decision would require site-specific analysis with public participation under NEPA to ensure the consideration of adequate alternatives and mitigations, including gate management and horse movement, before construction.

Mitigating surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in the Fifteenmile HMA would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by reducing adverse impacts associated with these activities, as previously described.

Alternative B

Surface Disturbance

Impacts of surface disturbance on wild horses would be similar to those described under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent, because the projected overall surface disturbance in the Planning Area is less under Alternative B (Table 4-1). With the expansion of the McCullough Peaks HMA, 38,268 acres (21 percent) of HMAs are contained in WSAs, which would limit adverse impacts to HMAs from surface-disturbing activities. Implementation of Alternative B would result in the least amount of short- and long-term surface disturbance (46 percent and 31 percent less than Alternative A, respectively) compared to the other alternatives, and would therefore have the fewest adverse impacts to wild horses.

Resource Uses

Management of minerals would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent. Implementation of Alternative B would involve the least amount of mineral activity compared to the other alternatives. Alternative B closes the most acreage in HMAs to mineral activity (Table 4-10).

Management of invasive species would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. However, under Alternative B, the BLM would treat the smallest area (5 percent of the area treated under Alternative A) for invasive species compared to other alternatives, potentially allowing for increased weed establishment in HMAs, with associated forage reductions.

Management of ROWs would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because there are more restrictions on ROW development under Alternative B. Alternative B includes more ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas in the HMAs compared to the other alternatives (Table 4-10). In addition, no areas are open to ROWs in the HMAs under Alternative B. ROW development would occur only in ROW avoidance/mitigation areas, where the BLM would apply appropriate mitigation measures and BMPs to limit impacts to wild horses and other resources.

Management of travel and transportation would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent. Under Alternative B, the BLM would close or limit to designated roads and trails motorized vehicle travel in the HMAs in more area than under the other alternatives (Table 4-10). Therefore, there would be fewer impacts from motorized vehicle use under Alternative B.

Impacts from recreation management under Alternative B would be similar to those under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, less spring and reservoir developments associated with livestock grazing would be constructed compared to the other alternatives, resulting in fewer beneficial impacts to wild horses. Under Alternative B, 60,361 acres (32 percent) of the HMAs are managed as closed to livestock grazing (Table 4-10), reducing competition for forage across most of the area open to wild horses and resulting in a beneficial impact to these animals. Apportioning additional sustained yield forage for wild horses and wildlife would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by increasing forage and decreasing the potential for competition with livestock and other wildlife. Alternative B results in the greatest potential additional forage available for wild horses, resulting in the greatest benefit to health and vigor for the constrained number of horses in the HMAs (i.e., 70 to 160 horses for the Fifteenmile HMA and 70 to 140 horses for the McCullough Peaks HMA).

Special Designations

Management of the Bridger Trail, which passes through the McCullough Peaks HMA, would result in similar beneficial impacts under Alternative B as those described under Alternative A, but to a greater extent due to the increased restrictions on resource uses and activities around the trail.

Resources

In general, management under Alternative B emphasizes the conservation and protection of resources (e.g., vegetation, water, and soils) which may improve forage and the health of wild horses. As a result, management of resources under Alternative B would have the greatest beneficial indirect impacts to wild horses compared to the other alternatives.

Impacts to wild horses from fire and fuels management would be similar to those under Alternative A. However, under Alternative B, the likelihood of mechanical treatments for fuels and prescribed fire use in the HMAs would be lower, which may further reduce the potential disturbance and displacement of wild horses. Fewer fuels treatments also may increase the potential for larger, more intense fires in the long term and associated adverse impacts to wild horses. However, as under Alternative A, such fires would likely remain uncommon due to the historical absence of wildfires in the HMAs.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative B, expansion of the McCullough Peaks HMA and maintaining the initial appropriate management level of horses in the HMA would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses (Map 36). Beneficial impacts include accommodating the routine movement of wild horses, which is in conflict with the currently designated HMA, and reducing the need for roundups to remove horses outside of the HMA. Providing opportunities for wild horse viewing in the McCullough Peaks HMA would have the same impacts as those described under Alternative A. However, not promoting wild horse viewing in the Fifteenmile HMA under Alternative B may help retain the remote natural conditions and the wild and free-roaming nature of horses compared to Alternative A. Opportunities for wild horse viewing would be less under Alternative B compared to alternatives A and C, but only in the Fifteenmile HMA.

Prohibiting horse use-based organized SRPs in the HMAs would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by retaining the remoteness of the herds and reducing the potential for human and domestic horse interaction that would reduce the wild and free-roaming nature of the horses. The chance of domestic horses joining wild horse herds, which would result in stress and harassment to wild horses from recapturing domestic horses and potential disease and parasite transmission, would be greatly reduced. However, this prohibition would reduce public opportunities to gain an appreciation for wild horses, possibly reduce adoption demand, and restrain public interest in wild horse management in the Planning Area.

Evaluating and removing interior fences in the McCullough Peaks HMA would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses by allowing movement in the HMA, increasing genetic viability, and reducing injuries and deaths.

Under Alternative B, applying seasonal restrictions from February 1 to July 31 to surface-disturbing and disruptive activities and land uses in the McCullough Peaks and Fifteenmile HMAs, as appropriate, and avoiding wild horse gathers from 6 weeks before to 6 weeks after foaling would beneficially impact wild horses by reducing the potential for foal abandonment or jeopardy of wild horse health and welfare.

Relative to all alternatives, Alternative B would result in the most indirect beneficial impacts to wild horses and their habitat because it conserves the most land area for physical, biological, and heritage resources and is the most restrictive to motorized vehicle use and mineral development.

Alternative C

Surface Disturbance

Impacts from surface disturbance on wild horses under Alternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative A, although to a greater extent. Similarly to Alternative A, 28,392 acres (16 percent) of HMAs are contained in WSAs, which will limit adverse impacts to HMAs from surface-disturbing activities under Alternative C. However, Alternative C is projected to result in the greatest amount of short- and long-term surface disturbance in the Planning Area (80-percent and 164-percent more than Alternative A, respectively), increasing the probability that surface disturbance would adversely affect wild horse habitat.

Resource Uses

Management of minerals under Alternative C would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a greater extent. Implementation of Alternative C would result in the greatest amount of minerals development compared to other alternatives (Appendix T). There would be less acreage closed to mineral activity in the HMAs under Alternative C than under other alternatives (Table 4-10).

Management of invasive species would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A.

Management of ROWs would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because there are more restrictions on ROW development under Alternative C. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative C includes more ROW avoidance/mitigation areas and less area open to ROW development within HMAs. Overall, Alternative C would result in the second-greatest adverse impact to wild horses from ROW development.

Management of travel and transportation would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a greater extent. Under Alternative C, the BLM would not close areas to motorized vehicle travel in the Fifteenmile HMA and would limit motorized vehicle travel to designated roads and trails in HMAs in more area than under Alternative A, but less than under alternatives B and D (Table 4-10).

Impacts from recreation management would be similar to those described for Alternative A.

Management of livestock grazing, including areas in the HMAs closed to livestock grazing (Table 4-10), under Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, thereby resulting in similar impacts. Under Alternative C, additional sustained yield forage would only be apportioned to satisfy suspended permitted use of permittees and not for the benefit of wild horses or other wildlife as under Alternative B. This management action would result in the fewest beneficial impacts to wild horses from forage apportionment.

Special Designations

Management of the Bridger Trail, which passes through the McCullough Peaks HMA, would result in similar beneficial impacts under Alternative C as those described under Alternative A, but to a greater extent due to greater restrictions around the trail under Alternative C. Management of the Bridger Trail under Alternative C would result in more restrictions on resource uses and activities than Alternative A, but less than alternatives B and D.

Resources

In general, management under Alternative C would emphasize resource use over resource conservation, which would result in more adverse impacts to forage and the health of wild horses, compared to the other alternatives. As a result, management of resources under Alternative C would have the greatest adverse impacts on wild horses compared to other alternatives.

Impacts to wild horses from fire and fuels management would be similar to those under Alternative A, although to a greater extent because the BLM would perform mechanical fuels treatments and prescribed burns on more acreage. Impacts from vegetation management in the Planning Area to wild horses under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative A. However, Alternative C does not prohibit surface-disturbing activities in riparian/wetland areas, which may cause short- and long-term adverse impacts.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative C, the McCullough Peaks HMA would be maintained at about 103,863 acres and the Fifteenmile HMA at 70,524 acres (Map 36). Wild horse viewing would be actively promoted in the McCullough Peaks HMA with opportunities for public viewing, education, and interpretation under this alternative. Opportunities for wild horse viewing would also be provided in the Fifteenmile HMA. In general, management under Alternative C would result in the same level of wild horse viewing as under Alternative A, but less than under alternatives B and D.

The beneficial impacts from evaluating and removing interior fences in the McCullough Peaks HMA realized under alternatives B and D would not occur under this alternative.

Alternative C does not include seasonal restrictions on surface-disturbing or disruptive activities in HMAs. This would result in long-term adverse impacts to wild horses by increasing the potential for disturbance to wild horses during sensitive times of the year, and by reducing forage and overall health of horses in the HMAs. Allowing SRPs in HMAs would cause impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a greater extent because the BLM would issue more SRPs under Alternative C. Evaluating fences on a case-by-case basis in the McCullough Peaks HMA would cause the same impacts as under Alternative A. Overall, proactive management for the protection of wild horses would provide the least beneficial impacts under Alternative C.

Alternative D

Surface Disturbance

Impacts of surface disturbance on wild horses would be similar to those described under Alternative A, although to a slightly greater extent because the projected short- and long-term surface disturbance in the Planning Area is 3 percent and 17 percent more, respectively, under Alternative D. The expansion of the McCullough Peaks HMA would be the same as under Alternative B, resulting in 38,268 acres (21 percent) of HMAs being contained in WSAs, which will limit adverse impacts to HMAs from surface-disturbing activities.

Resource Uses

Management of minerals would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. The amount of disturbance associated with minerals development is projected to be slightly less than under Alternative A. In HMAs, the acreage closed to mineral activity under Alternative D is greater than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B (Table 4-10).

Management of invasive species would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A.

Management of ROWs would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent because there are more restrictions on ROW development under Alternative D. The BLM would manage the majority of the McCullough Peaks and Fifteenmile HMAs as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas where mitigation measures and the application of BMPs would limit impacts to wild horses (Table 4-10). Overall, Alternative D would result in the second-fewest adverse impacts to wild horses from ROW development.

Under Alternative D, HMAs are closed to motorized vehicle use or it is limited to designated roads and trailson more acreage than under alternatives A and C but less than under Alternative B. The overall adverse impacts to wild horses from travel management would be similar to those described under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent. Restricting motorized travel would benefit wild horses by minimizing surface disturbance and stress to wild horses associated with motorized vehicle use.

Impacts from recreation management under Alternative D would be similar to those described under Alternative A.

The amount of rangeland improvement projects, such as springs, reservoirs, and fence development, constructed under Alternative D would be similar to that under Alternative A, resulting in similar adverse and beneficial impacts. Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage the same amount of acreage as open to livestock grazing as under Alternative A (Table 4-10), resulting in impacts similar to those under Alternative A.

Special Designations

Under Alternative D, management of the Bridger Trail, which passes through the McCullough Peaks HMA, would causebeneficial impacts similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree due to increased restrictions on resource uses and activities around the trail. Management of the Bridger Trail under Alternative D would result in more restrictions on resource uses and activities than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B.

Resources

Management designed to protect resources such as soil, water, and vegetation would benefit wild horses by limiting surface-disturbing activities and minimizing impacts to forage and habitat. Several management actions require avoidance of surface-disturbing activities for the protection of resources under Alternative D. In areas that require avoidance, surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited unless the impacts could be mitigated, thereby limiting long-term adverse impacts to wild horses.

Prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments are projected to disturb the same acreage as Alternative A, therefore causing similar impacts.

Proactive Management

Similar to Alternative B, expansion of the McCullough Peaks HMA and maintaining the initial appropriate management level of horses in the HMA would result in beneficial impacts to wild horses (Map 36). Under Alternative D, the BLM would promote opportunities for public viewing, education, and interpretation of wild horses in the McCullough Peaks HMA, but would not actively promote the Fifteenmile HMA to the public. Under Alternative D, fewer opportunities for wild horse viewing would exist in the Fifteenmile HMA than under alternatives A and C, resulting in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative B. In general, opportunities for wild horse viewing in the McCullough Peaks HMA would be similar under all alternatives, resulting in impacts similar to those described under Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, the BLM would prohibit and avoid, respectively, organized SRPs using domestic horses in the McCullough Peaks and Fifteen Mile HMAs. Restricting SRPs using domestic horses in the HMAs would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. Although SRPs are not prohibited in the Fifteenmile HMA, avoidance would require that impacts are mitigated, reducing the potential for long-term impacts.

Evaluating and removing interior fences in the McCullough Peaks HMA to provide for wild horse movement would result in similar beneficial impacts as those under Alternative B.

Seasonal restrictions to prevent foal abandonment and jeopardy of wild horse health would result in similar beneficial impacts as those under Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because the restrictions would not apply to disruptive activities.