Awhpc Divide Basin Scoping Comments 1010114

8/13/2019 Awhpc Divide Basin Scoping Comments 1010114

1/25

January 10, 2014

Jay DEwart, Wild Horse and Burro SpecialistBLM Rock Springs Field Office280 Highway 191 NorthRock Springs, Wyoming 82901Fax: (307) 352-0329Email:[email protected]

RE: Divide Basin Scoping Comments

Dear Mr. DEwart:

We submit the following public comments on behalf of American Wild HorsePreservation Campaign (AWHPC). AWHPC is a national coalition of over 60 historicpreservation, conservation, horse advocacy and animal welfare organizations representingover 10 million people nationwide.

In addition, the requests for impacts and alternatives to be analyzed that are madeby AWHPC are endorsed by more than 11,700 individual citizens who have submittedcomments in response to the Scoping Notice and in opposition to the Proposed Action.Please see Attachment 1 for list of citizens submitting comments on this scoping.

I.

Overview

A. Proposed Roundup Will Cost Taxpayers Money, Harm Wild Horses Without

Justification

According to the scoping notice, the BLM is proposing to conduct a helicopterroundup in the Divide Basin HMA that would:

Remove 164 wild horses from the HMA. Zero out (eliminate all wild horses from) the southern portion of the HMA,

which comprises nearly half of this designated wild horse area.

This action cannot be justified because:

The wild horse population in the Divide Basin HMA is well within the AllowableManagement Level (AML) range of 415 600 horses established in the Green

River Resource Management Plan (RMP).
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/25

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping CommentsJanuary 10, 2014Page 2

The most recent population survey by BLM (date undisclosed in the scopingstatement) found the population to be just above low AML 439 horses. The estimated2014 population, based on a 15% population growth rate is 579still within the AMLestablished by the RMP. The area was subjected to a large-scale roundup just over two

years ago, which removed 1,000 horses from this area. The expenditure of tax dollars andinfliction of stress and trauma on these horses caused by the roundup is not justifiedbecause the BLMs own documents clearly show there is no overpopulation of wild

horses in this HMA.

The Proposed Action will effectively reduce the size of the HMA by nearly half,altering the HMA boundaries that were established in the RMP.

The scoping notice states that the RSFO proposes to adhere to the April 3, 2013Court Ordered Consent Decree to remove all wild horses that have strayed onto private

lands (checkerboard) within the Great Divide Basin Herd Management Area (HMA). The

low Appropriate Management Level (AML) of 415 wild horses would be maintainednorth of the checkerboard lands. Excess wild horses would be removed and the

remainder may be relocated in the northern part of the Great Divide Basin HMA as

supported by the Green River Resource Management Plan.

However, pursuant to the Green River RMP, the HMA boundaries clearly includethe checkerboard lands. The removal of all horses from the checkerboard area will resultin the de facto zeroing out nearly half of this HMA. In a separate action, the BLM hasinitiated a scoping process for amendment of this RMP to allow for the zeroing out of theentire Divide Basin HMA. This action to zero out nearly half of this HMA is being donein advance of that RMP amendment and is therefore inconsistent with the existing RMP.

Because no statutorily required decisions have been made to change theboundaries of the Divide Basin HMA, any decision to remove all wild horses from thecheckerboard lands (public and private) cannot be made without compliance with thosegoverning laws, regulations and land use plans. As a result, the BLM cannot lawfullyimplement an action to remove all wild horses from the checkerboard lands in this HMAthrough a wild horse gather plan and EA.

The removal of horses from private lands and checkerboard lands in this HMAis illegal.

The Proposed Action to remove all horses from private lands and checkerboardlands is illegal and inconsistent with the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act(Wild Horse Act). Under the Wild Horse Act, a request for removal of horses must be

specific in nature. BLM regulations (43 C.F.R. 4720.2-1) state specifically that aprivate landowner requesting removal of wild horses shall . . . indicate [in writing] thenumbers of wild horses or burros [and] the date(s) the animals were on the land.Inother words, the request must be made for removal of a specific number of horses


3/25


at a specific time over a specific parcel of land. The law does not allow a landowner,

such as the RSGA, to make blanket request for removal of horses over a large swath

of land (~300,000 acres) in perpetuity. (See Attachment 1)

As well the Proposed Action is inconsistent with the Resource Management Plans(RMPs) governing land use in these areas because this will necessarily involve removinghorses that live on public lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM and that, accordingly,are protected under the Wild Horse Act. Because there is no way for BLM to legitimatelyidentify those horses that are on private lands in the checkerboard portion of the DivideBasin HMA from those that are using the public lands, this aspect of the Proposed Actionis a gross violation of the Wild Horse Act.

By proposing this action, the BLM has announced its intention to deny wildhorses access to federally-designated habitat areas, while, in essence, turning the

public lands portions of checkerboard lands in these two HMAs over to the RSGA

for tax-subsidized grazing of privately owned livestock. This is illegal under the WildHorse Act.

The 2013 Consent Decree does not trump federal law.The Proposed Action attempts to adopt agreements that the BLM has made with

the Rock Springs Grazing Association (RSGA), the nations largest grazing association,in a consent decree in settlement ofRSGA vs. Ken Salazar, et. al.(See Attachment 4.)However, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has explained, an agency violatesNEPA when it makes a commitment to engage in a particular course of action beforegoing through the NEPA process. (See Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1143-44 (9th

Cir.2000). Similarly, although BLM has gone through the motions of claiming that someof the commitments contained in the Consent Decree are subject to the outcome of theNEPA processes that necessarily apply to these decisions, it is clear that the die already

has been cast with respect to the agencys plans to remove hundreds of horses from the

public lands in the Wyoming. This is a violation of both the intent and spirit of NEPA.

The Proposed Action would close public lands to wild horse use while turningthem over to RSGA.

The Proposed Action would illegally elevate the interests of private livestockowners over the mandatory duty to protect wild horses in this area and over the interests

of those who cherish the opportunity to observe, photograph, and otherwise enjoy whatCongress has declared a national esthetic treasure when it enacted the Wild Horse Act.

The Proposed Action is inconsistent with the recommendations of the NationalAcademy of Sciences in a report that the BLM requested and for which the BLM

established the study scope and underwrote to the tune of more than $1 million

tax dollars.


4/25


The Proposed Action reflects the very approach to wild horse management thatthe NAS concluded is ineffective as a strategy for wild horse management. The NASfound that the BLMs policy of maintaining artificially low wild horse population levels

and conducting frequent removals of large numbers of horses actually increases wild

horse reproductive rates and worsens agency management problems.(See Attachments 5and 6 for report and summary.) The NAS recommended using fertility control as ancurrently-available tool for managing populations, yet this scoping statement proposescontinued removals and states only that fertility control may be used on this wild horseherd.

These points will be discussed in further detail in these comments.

II. Issues and Impacts That BLM Should Consider While Developing an EA forthe Proposed Action

NEPA requires the BLM to take a hard look at the anticipated environmentaland cumulative impacts of the proposed actions. As part of its NEPA analysis, theService must take the hard look mandated by Congress, by evaluating the uniqueresources that will be impacted by the proposed actions. As BLM undertakes the processof removing all wild horses from a land area that comprises nearly half of the DivideBasin HMA, it should consider several issues that impact the health of the range. Specificissues are outlines below. Any issue raised in the attachments to these comments notspecifically outlined below are herby incorporated by reference and should also beconsidered by the agency.

A. Impacts From Livestock Grazing

The environmental impacts of livestock grazing, especially since, after theproposed action, it will be the predominant use within the Checkerboard lands, includesevere, long-term damage to range. Multiple use is very beneficial for the environment,and particularly sensitive vegetation, because different users (e.g., livestock, wild horses,and wildlife) use the lands and vegetation in different ways. When that is eliminated, theresources are subjected to an unnatural use of the lands, which can cause severe long-termdamage to the vegetation. As a result, eliminating wild horses from thecheckerboard portion of the HMA and maintaining reducing the wild horse populationwithin the HMA to the low AML of 415, when the established range allows a maximumpopulation of 600 horses, would significantly impact the vegetation because the primary

use would be by cattle and sheep in a highly concentrated and vegetative damagingmanner. This is especially true in this HMA, because livestock wouldbe by far thepredominant use in this area. (See Eisenhauer Declaration at Attachment 3B for moreinformation.)

Additionally, the removal and reduction of the wild horse population in this areawill make more forage available for private livestock grazing, creating the likelihood thatlivestock grazing levels will increase in this area. All impacts of livestock grazing on the


5/25


environment must be evaluated in the EA including the potential for exacerbatedenvironmental impacts due to increased livestock grazing. The EA must clearly take intoconsideration differences in the ways wild horses and livestock utilize the land and thedifferent impacts that result. (Please see Attachment 2, 3, 4 and 5 for more information on

this subject.)

Finally, the EA must consider the current significant impacts of livestock grazingon the environment in this area. The specific way in which BLM attributes impacts todifferent uses of the public lands, and the basis on which BLM delineates wild horseimpacts from livestock impacts must also be addressed in the EIS.

As the record inRSGA vs. Salazar(D. WY.) shows, it is the livestock and notthewild horses that are causing the most serious damage to the public lands in Wyoming.The BLMs own official rangeland health assessment documents (Attachment 6) showthat the tens of thousands of cattle and sheep that are permitted to roam the public lands

in the Wyoming Checkerboard are causing serious damage to these resources -- damagethat BLM is required by statute to take into account in deciding how best to balance theuse of this land by both wild horses (which are protected by federal statute) and livestock(which BLM may, in its discretion, allow but are not protected by any federal mandate).(See Attachments 2 and 3 and all Exhibits thereto, hereby attached and incorporated byreference.)

Finally, it is documented that the BLM is underestimating forage usage by cattle,based on an outdated formula that is no longer relevant given the size of todays cattle.

The data also highlights that cows consume more forage than wild horses. ("Cattleconsumed 11.3 kg DM/d while horses consumed only 8.25 kg/d (P < 0.05)."). This

information is documented in Attachment 7 and must be taken into consideration by theBLM when considering forage allocations in any RMP revisions.

B. Impacts of Roundup And Removal Activities

The BLM must consider the impact of the proposed roundup and removal of 164wild horses from the Divide Basin HMA. Such considerations should include the impactsof stampeding horses and helicopter drives on threatened and endangered species of floraand fauna, including sage grouse. The proposed roundup and removal operation wouldresult in intensive activities that will have negative impacts on this sensitive high desertenvironment.

C. Impacts of Wild Horse Eradication

Since wild horses are by law to be considered a natural componentof the landson which they are found, and are legally designated to exist within the clearly definedboundaries of the Divide Basin HMA, removal of wild horses from nearly half the HMAwill also have a significant effect on the environment. All of these impacts must beanalyzed. (See above Section III as well as Attachments 2 and 3 and exhibits.).


6/25


D. Impacts to Recreational Users

Removing all wild horses from the checkerboard portion of the Divide BasinHMA will impact recreational users of these public lands, especially those who frequent

the area to view, observe, and photograph wild horses. In particular, the decision toreduce by 164 the number of wild horses in the HMAeven though the population iswell within AML -- will negatively impact recreational users of these public lands bymaking wild horse viewing more difficult. The Divide Basin HMA is popular withphotographers and wild horse watchers as any Google search will reveal. As a result,BLM should consider all the potential detrimental impacts to recreational users of publiclands due to the Proposed Action.

E. Economic Impacts

There are significant costs associated with the roundup, removal, and lifetime

holding of wild horses. The BLM should consider all of these potential economic impactswhen considering the Proposed Action. The Government Accounting Office (GAO)detailed the significant costs associated with the BLMs current management of wild

horses. (See Attachment 8). These economic impacts include (1) lost revenues, (2) costsfor roundup, and (3) lifetime holding of horses. The BLM should compare these costs tothe economic benefits to American taxpayers of reducing or eliminating taxpayer-subsidized livestock grazing in this area. (See Attachment 2C for documentation thatpublic lands livestock grazing costs taxpayers as much as $500 million per year.) Thepotential economic benefits of wild horse ecotourism and the impacts of the loss of thosebenefits should be included here.

F. Social Impacts

The American public has a deep and passionate connection to wild horses. As theWild Horse Act recognizes wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols ofthe historic and pioneer spirit of the west. 16 U.S.C. 1331. The BLM should considerthe social impacts of zeroing out nearly half of the Divide Basin HMA for wild horses,for which an overwhelming majority of the public wants protection. Social impacts onthose citizens and tourists interested in viewing wild horses living naturally on protectedpublic lands must also be evaluated.

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider environmental effects that include,

among others, impacts on social, cultural, and economic resources, as well as naturalresources. Thus the BLM must consider both legal and social factors and impacts, inmaking land use decisions, such as setting and maintenance of AML and grazingallocations. This was highlighted in a 1982 National Academy of Sciences/NationalResearch Council report on the BLMs wild horse and burro program:

Attitudes and values that influence and direct public priorities regardingthe size, distribution, and condition of horse herds, as well as their


7/25


accessibility to public viewing and study, must be an important factor inthe determination of what constitutes excess numbers of animals in anyarea . . . [A]n otherwise satisfactory population level may be controversialor 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 for1,000 horses, the area can be said in this context to have an excess of 500cattle. For these reasons, the term excess has both biological and socialcomponents. In the above example, biological excess constitutes anynumber of animals, regardless of which class above 1,000. Social excessdepends on management policies, legal issues, and prevailing publicpreference..

The importance of social considerations was reaffirmed in the NAS report of2013. See9.

Here the public opposition to the BLMs plan to remove 164 wild horses fromthe Divide Basin HMA and eliminate all wild horses from the checkerboard portion ofthe area is evidenced by more than 11,700 individual citizens who have submitted

comments to BLM on this scoping notice, urging reasonable alternatives to the

Proposed Actions explained therein. In addition, the public opposition was alsodemonstrated by the nearly 15,000 public comments submitted in response to the BLMsScoping Notice for amending the Green River and Rawlins RMPs to, among other things,revert the Great Divide Basin HMA to HA status, thus zeroing this popular HMA out for

wild horse use. This public opposition constitutes a prevailing public preference thatwild horses remain on the range. This fact provides sufficient reason for BLM toreanalyze the Proposed Action, taking into account the publics preference that wildhorses be left on the range and maintained throughout this HMA.

Finally, the EIS must consider the social factors that play a role in land usedecisions and management policies, and it must adequately consider the BLMs authorityto modify land use decisions, such as wild horse AMLs and livestock grazing allocationsthrough a variety of tools, including the agencys adaptive management strategy as well

as agency regulations. Clearly, the prevailing public preference supports a reallocation ofresources in this HMA to achieve a fairer distribution of forage Animal Unit Months

(AUMs) in these areas in order to achieve reasonable multiple use.

G. Cumulative Impacts

The BLM should consider all cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action toreduce the habitat for wild horses within the HMA and to reduce the population leveldespite the fact that it is well within the established AML in conjunction with other past,present and future actions, including the lease of public land parcels for oil and gas


8/25


exploration and extraction.

H. Wild Horse Impacts

The BLM should consider all of the impacts on wild horses of removal, transportand maintenance in short and long-term holding facilities as well as adoption and sale.The following information should be provided in consideration of these impacts:

i. Spreadsheet on the disposition of all horses captured in theNovember 2011 Great Divide Basin roundup so that the impacts ofthe roundup on the horses can adequately be assessed. Thespreadsheet should include the identification number (freezebrand), age, sex, color and description, and disposition of eachanimal (i.e. which facility animal was shipped to and date shipped)and current status of each animal (i.e. holding; adopted; shipped,

death, released).

ii. Mortality rates during all roundup activities prior to arrival atinitial holding facility.

iii. Mortality rate and causes of death for horses in short term holdingfacilities (time period from 0 to 3 months; 3 to 6 months; over 6months).

iv. Mortality rate and causes of death for horses in long term holdingfacilities.

v. Percentage breakdown of the fates of horses removed from therange (percent adopted, percent sent to long-term holding, percentthat die).

vi. Listing and information on veterinary and husbandry issues facedby horses captured and placed into short and long term holding,including, but not limited to the problems caused by the stress ofcapture and transition to captivity.

The BLM must also analyze the impacts of:

vii. A helicopter stampede conducted in summer, when temperaturesare high and foals are small and vulnerable to physical exertionand trauma.

viii. Removing 164 horses and sending them to holding facilities wherethey are at increased risk of injury, disease and death.

ix. Removing all horses from checkerboard lands, reducing the habitat


9/25


area in Divide Basin by nearly half.

x. Adding 164 horses to holding facilities that are already at capacitywith 50,000 horses and burros stockpiled. These horses are atincreased risk of slaughter due to BLM already selling off horses

to a known kill buyer in order to reduce holding pressures.

xi. Removal, transport, maintenance in short- and long-term holdingfacilities.

xii. The Proposed Action on wild horses health, herd structure andnatural behaviors, particularly when compared to alternativeactions that would allow wild horses to remain on the range.

Analysis should address the implications of BLMs lack of holding space andthe stockpiling of 50,000 wild horses in holding facilitieson the long-term welfare and

safety of horses captured and removed from these HMAs. Many of these issues arefurther explored in the GAO Report (Attachment 8) and are thereby incorporated byreference.

I. Impacts of Fertility Control on Divide Basin Horses

The scoping notice states only that the project may use a fertility control vaccineon wild horses in the HMA. However, the type of fertility control vaccine is not

specified. The EA must include a specific description of the fertility control vaccine to beused and include protocols for its use. The only fertility control vaccine that has a history

of safe and effective use on wild horse populations is PZP fertility control. If a vaccineother than PZP native or 22 is contemplated, then the BLM must provide the researchindicating that it is safe. Both Spay Vac and GonaCon have been associated with seriousside effects. The information in Attachments 9 and 10 are hereby incorporated byreference.

J. BLM Should Address The Concerns Raised In the GAO Report

In October 2008, the GAO issued a report concerning the BLMs Wild Horse andBurro Program (Attachment 8). In that report, the GAO explained:

[s[ince the passage of the 1971 act, there has been controversy over the number ofwild horses and burros that BLM manages in the wild and the amount of publiclands available for their management. There is concern by some, including wildhorse and burro advocacy groups, that the number of animals managed in the wildis too low to protect their genetic integrity; that the numbers are based oninsufficient rangeland monitoring data; and that BLM gives preference to otherusers of the range, primarily livestock and wildlife. For instance, groups often


10/25


point out that BLM permits more cattle and sheep to graze on BLM managedlands than horses.

This report goes on to explain several significant shortcomings of BLMs current

management of wild horses. The Proposed Action continues this failed managementstrategy. The GAO report (Attachment 8) and all issues outlined therein are herebyincorporated by reference.

K. BLM Should Consider The Findings In The NAS Report

The Wild Horse Act provides that, [f]orthe purpose of furthering knowledge ofwild horse and burro population dynamics and their interrelationship with wildlife,forage, water resources, and assisting him in making determinations as to whatconstitutes excess animals, the Secretary shall contract for a research study of animalswith such individuals . . . as may be recommended by the National Academy of Sciences

for having scientific expertise and special knowledge of wild horse and burro protection,wildlife management and animal husbandry as related to rangeland management. 16U.S.C. 1333(b)(3).

In 2011 the BLM commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to conduct areview of federal wild horse and burro program. The BLM paid for the study and set itsscope of work. In June 2013, the NAS released its report, Using Science to Improve theBLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward.The report was harshly criticalof the BLMs current approach to wild horse and burro management, warning thatcontinuation of business as usualwill be expensive and unproductive for the BLMand the public it serves. (The report can be found in Attachment 9, and Key Findings

from the report are included in Attachment 13.)

The BLM should consider all of the findings in the NAS Report, which are herebyincorporated by reference, when considering the Proposed Action. In particular, theBLM should consider the following key issues:

(1) Currently the BLM does not use any science as a basis for allocatingforage and habitat resources to various uses. In addition, the method forestablishing, monitoring, and adjusting AMLs is not transparent to

stakeholders, supported by scientific information, or amenable toadaptation with new information and environmental and social change.

Standards for transparency, quality and equity are needed in establishingthese levels, monitoring them and adjusting them.

(2) BLM current management practices facilitate high rates of populationgrowth.

(3) BLM should engage with the public in ways that allow public input toinfluence agency decisions, develop an iterative process between public


11/25


deliberation and scientific discovery, and co-design the participatoryprocess with representatives of the public.

(4) NAS recommended that BLM utilize reproductive control methods that

have minimal impacts on natural behaviors.

III. Alternatives that BLM should considerNEPA requires BLM to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to determine

the relative environmental benefits or risks of each proposal, including a no-actionalternative that would allow the affected HMAs to remain at their current AMLs, and onethat would increase wild horse AMLs and decrease private livestock grazing. As a result,the following alternatives must be analyzed as part of the EA on the Divide Basin wildhorse roundup and removal.

A. Decrease Livestock Animal Unit Months (AUM); Increase Wild Horse AMLs

The BLM currently allocates just 4,9807,200 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) inthe Divide Basin HMA, while 126,705 AUMs are allocated for livestock in the fourHMAs that fall fully or partially within the HMA. The BLM must include an Alternativefor decreasing livestock forage allocations and increasing wild horse forage allocations inthe revised RMP. This is consistent with the NAS finding that how AppropriateManagement Levels (AMLs) are established, monitored, and adjusted is not transparent

to stakeholders, supported by scientific information, or amenable to adaptation with new

information and environmental and social change. Standards for transparency, quality

and equityare needed in establishing these levels, monitoring them and adjusting them.Attachment 9. Alternatives for eliminating livestock grazing altogether in the HMA,

and for equitably distributing (50-50) forage resources between wild horses and

livestock in HMA should be evaluated.

The public sentiment clearly calls for reductions in livestock AUM

allocations and increases in wild horse AUM. Recent polls have documented broad

support for protecting wild horses on public lands (72%) while only 29% support

livestock grazing on public lands. (Attachment 11) At minimum, the wild horse

AML, which allows up to 600 horses in Divide Basin, must be maintained. There is

no biological, ecological or social support for reducing the AML, maintaining the

population only at low AML, or for eliminating wild horses entirely from the anarea that comprises nearly half of the HMA.

The BLM has the clear authority to implement alternatives that reduce livestockgrazing and increase wild horse AML:

CFR 4710.5 - Closure to livestock grazing. (a) If necessary to provide habitatfor wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect


12/25


wild

horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect wild horsesor burros from disease, harassment or injury, the authorized officer may closeappropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of

livestock. (b) All public lands inhabited by wild horses or burros shall beclosed to grazing under permit or lease by domestic horses and burros. (c)Closure may be temporary or permanent. After appropriate public consultation, aNotice of Closure shall be issued to affected and interested parties.Under alternatives that maintain or increase the AML, ranchers PRIVILEGE of

public lands livestock grazing at taxpayer- subsidized, below-market rates wouldcontinue only IN EXCHANGE FOR tolerating the presence of wild horses on the privatelands in the checkerboard and on the public lands where they have a RIGHT to exist. Ifranchers do not agree to this arrangement, then their PRIVILEGE to graze livestock onthe public lands at taxpayer subsidized rates, which is given solely at the DISCRETION

of the Interior Secretaryshall be REVOKED.

B. Undertake Land Swaps to Resolve Conflicts in Checkerboard Areas

Land swaps can be undertaken to create contiguous habitat areas for federallyprotected wild horses out of the present checkerboard configuration in this area.According to the Congressional Research Service, Exchanges can be used to change the

checkerboard pattern of federal, state, and privately owned lands in the West thatresulted from early land grants. Land consolidation can increase the efficiency of landmanagement while decreasing management costs. . . . BLM typically completes dozensof exchanges each year under FLPMA. The documents at these links are incorporated by

reference here:

i. BLM land exchange policy (Attachment 14)http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/land_tenure/exchange.html

ii. BLMs Land Exchange Handbook(Attachment 15)http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdf

iii. BLM Wyoming policy (Attachment 16):http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/raw

lins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdf

iv. Congressional Research Service Report, Land Exchanges: Bureau of LandManagement Processes and Issues(Attachment 17)http://tinyurl.com/nfcadcb:

The CRS Report shows clearly that land exchanges have precedent in checkerboardareas:
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/land_tenure/exchange.htmlhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://tinyurl.com/nfcadcbhttp://tinyurl.com/nfcadcbhttp://tinyurl.com/nfcadcbhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/land_tenure/exchange.html


13/25


Exchanges can be used to change the checkerboard pattern of federal, state,and privately owned lands in the West that resulted from early land grants. Landconsolidation can increase the efficiency of land management while decreasing

management costs. . . . BLM typically completes dozens of exchanges each yearunder FLPMA and acts of Congress.

Clearly, land exchanges in the checkerboard portions of the Divide Basin HMA toattain contiguous parcels of public land present BLM with a solution to the managementdifficulties the present alternating public/private land parcel configuration creates. Thiswould be a clear alternative for the management of wild horses in the Divide Basin HMAthat would attain a number of the objectives laid out in BLMs land exchange policies,including creation of more logical and efficient land ownership pattern and the

acquisition of key habitat for a federally-protected, natural resource: Americas wildhorses and burros.

C. Cumulative Impact of Zeroing Out Wild Horse Habitat

It should be noted that the BLM has already eliminated over 1.3 million acres ofwild horse habitat originally designated under the Wild Horse Act.

According to the BLMs GeoCommunicator system, the planning area encompassed

by these RMPs includes two Herd Areas from which wild horses have been eliminated(zeroed out) entirely:

Triangle (WY0013) - 294,331 BLM acres, 333,729 total acres Gold Creek (WY0014) - 29,684 BLM acres, 39,560 total acres

In addition, portions of two other HMAs/HAs have been reduced:

Continental Peak (WY0043)Originally 740,356 BLM acres, 791,721 totalacres; 47% zeroed out.. Total habitat loss for wild horses: 372,109 acres.

Rock Springs HA (WY0038) HA - originally 1,916,241 acres was combinedwith the Salt Wells Creek HA (WY001) - originally 654,727 acres - to formthe Salt Wells Creek HMA. Approximately 22%, or 565, 612 acres of thisarea was zeroed out for wild horses.

See Map at Attachment 18.

This Proposed Action and the RMP amendments sought by the BLM to reducethe Divide Basin AML to 0 are part of a trajectory that leads to the elimination of wildhorses in the Wyoming Checkerboard. Given that the BLM has already eliminated 1.3million acres of wild horse habitat in Wyoming, as well as the prevailing publicsentiment that favors wild horses, and the NAS recommendation that standards for equitybe used in making resource allocations, the action outlined in the Scoping Notice is


14/25

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping CommentsJanuary 10, 2014Page 14unjustified and must be abandoned.

E. Manage Wild Horses Using Fertility Control In Accordance With NASGuidelines with Goal of Reducing/ Eliminating removals.

The GAO report confirms that the BLMs current practice of rounding up andremoving wild horses from the range in numbers that far exceed adoption demand isfiscally unsustainable. Since the American public overwhelmingly opposes horseslaughter (Attachment 19), the only solution is to reduce removals to correspond toadoption demand (under 3,000 per year) or to manage horses on the range and reduceremovals entirely.

Indeed this is the recommendation of the NAS in its 2013 report (Attachment 9). TheNAS concluded:

Tools [including PZP fertility control] already exist for BLM to address manychallenges. p. 13 (P. 303 confirms that BLM is not using PZP in a manner thatwill impact population growth.)

In the short term, more intensive management of free-ranging horses and burroswould be expensive. However, addressing the problem immediately with a

long-term view is probably a more affordable option than continuing to

remove horses to long-term holding facilities. p. 13-14

In implementing this option, the BLM should explore the methods recommendedby the NAS, namely:

Most promising fertility-control methods for free-ranging horses or burros areporcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccines and GonaCon vaccinefor females andchemical vasectomy for males.This conclusion is based on criteria such asdelivery method, availability, efficacy, duration of effect, and potential for sideeffects. Although applying these methods usually requires gathering horses andburros, that process is no more disruptive than the current method of populationcontrolgathering and removalwithout the further disruption of r emoving

animals. Considering all the cur rent options, these three methods, either alone

or i n combination, of fer the most acceptable alternati ve to removing animals for

managing population numbers.

However, with regard to GonaCon and chemical vasectomy, the NAS panelrecommended further studies before use in wild horse herds. The panel also noted that thereversibility of SpayVac also requires further investigation and further research on

uterine changes during and after treatment with SpayVac is warranted. (Attachment 9)(Also see Attachment 10 for report on SpayVac and questions about side effects andquestions about reversibility.) Therefore, the only fertility control method that is ready touse on wild herds is PZP native or PZP-22.


15/25


The Scoping Statement states only that fertility control may be used on Divide

Basin horses as part of the proposed action. The EA should specify the type of fertilitycontrol to be used and include both impacts analysis and protocols for its use. Further,since PZP native and PZP-22 are the only fertility control vaccines appropriate and ready

for use in wild herds, one of these formulations should be used.

IV. Specific Issues Associated With the Rock Springs and Rawlins RMPAmendments Dictated By The 2013 Consent Decree

In addition to the general issues outlined above, there are several specific issuesthat BLM should consider while analyzing the Proposed Action, which the agency statesis required by the 2013 Consent Decree. The concerns related to the plans for DivideBasin are outlined below briefly. This is explained in greater detail in Attachment 3(Intervenor-Respondent Opening Brief and Exhibits,RSGA v. Salazar, June 27, 2012),Attachment 4 (Intervenors-Defendant Objections to the Consent Decree and Exhibits,

RSGA v. Salazar, February 25, 2013). Any additional concerns raised in these documentsnot specifically outlined below are also expressly incorporated by reference, andtherefore must be addressed by BLM in its NEPA process.

A. Plan to remove all horses from the private lands in these two HMAs violatesthe Wild Horse Act.

The Scoping Notice states: After BLM and Rock Springs Grazing Association(RSGA) entered into a settlement, the United States District Court for the District ofWyoming issued a Consent Decree and Joint Stipulation for Dismissal on April 3, 2013.

The Consent Decree provides a gather schedule to remove wild horses from private landsincluding the checkerboard area of unfenced private and public lands. The Consent

Decree is based on the RSGAs demand that all wild horses be removed from the privatelands within the Wyoming Checkerboard.

1. The request for removal of horses from private lands must be specific in nature.Under the law, a request for removal of horses must be specific in nature. BLMregulations (43 C.F.R. 4720.2-1) state specifically that a private landownerrequesting removal of wild horses shall . . . indicate [in writing] the numbers ofwild horses or burros [and] the date(s) the animals were on the land. In other

words, the request must be made for removal of a specific number of horses at aspecific time over a specific parcel of land. The law does not allow a landowner,

such as the RSGA, to make blanket request for removal of horses over a

large swath of land (500,000+ acres) in perpetuity. As a result, the proposedaction to remove horses from the private lands in the Divide Basin HMA is agross violation of the Wild Horse Act and its regulations. (Attachments 2 and 3)


16/25


In addition, this aspect of the proposed action would have profound impacts onthis HMA, and those impacts must be considered in the EA.

2. It is impossible to remove horses from private land without also removingfederally-protected horses living on public lands at the same time.

Due to the presence of checkerboard lands (alternating public/private landparcels) in nearly half of the Divide Basin HMA, it will be logistically impossibleto remove wild horses from the private lands in these HMAs without alsoremoving them from the public lands. As the RSGA itself admitted in its lawsuit(RSGA vs. Ken Salazar, et. al., Civ. No. 2:11-CV-00263-NDF (D. Wy.)), becauseof the configuration of the Checkerboard, there simply is no practical way todifferentiate between horses that are on the private lands versus those that are onthe public lands at any one point in time. See Attachment 21, RSGA Brief. at 39

(stating that RSGA cannot fence the horses out without unlawfully fencingpublic lands and harming wildlife).

As former BLM official Lloyd Eisenhauer, who has extensive experience with theHMAs in the Rock Springs and Rawlins BLM districts, explained in a declarationfor the intervenors inRSGA vs. Ken Salazar, et. al. (Attachment 3B):

due to state laws, property lines, and intermingled lands, it isimpossible to fence the lands of the Wyoming Checkerboard, which means

that both the wild horses and the livestock that graze there roam freely

between public and private lands on the Checkerboard without any

physical barriers.

For this reason, it is illogical for BLM to commit to removing wild horsesthat are on private lands RSGA owns or leases because those same

horses are likely to be on public BLM land (for example, the Salt Wells,

Adobe Town, Great Divide, and White Mountain HMAs) earlier in that

same day or later that same evening.in contrast to other areas of thecountry where wild horses still exist, on the Wyoming Checkerboard there

is no way to distinguish between horses on private lands and those on

public lands, and therefore it would be unprecedented, and indeed

impossible for BLM to contend that it is removing all horses on RSGAs

private lands at any given time of the year, months, or day, consideringthat those horses would only be on the strictly private lands very

temporarily and intermittently on any particular day.

Accordingly, because there is no way for BLM to legitimately identify thosehorses that are on private lands in the checkerboard portions of the Divide BasinHMA from those that are using the public lands, this aspect of the ProposedAction is a gross violation of the Wild Horse Act.


17/25


The EA must provide detailed information and description of this aspect of theproposed action, including how the crucial determination regarding which horsesare on private land and which horses are on public land will be made.

B. BLM has no legal authority to remove horses from the public lands of theWyoming checkerboard.

The proposed removal of all horses from the checkerboard lands within theDivide Basin HMA would violate the Wild Horse Act and the RMPs governing these twoareas. By proposing this action, the BLM has announced its intention to deny wild

horses access to federally-designated habitat areas, while, in essence, turning the

public lands portions of checkerboard lands in these two HMAs over to the RSGAfor tax-subsidized grazing of privately owned livestock.This is illegal under the WildHorse Act.

BLM regulations (43 C.F.R. 4710.1) require that all [m]anagement activities

affecting wild horses and burros . . . shall be in accordance with approved land useplans.

The Scoping Statement states:

The low Appropriate Management Level (AML) of 415 wild horses wouldbe maintained north of the checkerboard lands. Excess wild horses would

be removed and the remainder may be relocated in the northern part of

the Great Divide Basin HMA as supported by the Green River Resource

Management Plan.

However the Proposed Action is inconsistent withnot supported bythe GreenRiver RMP, which sets the Divide Basin AML at a range up to 600 horses and clearlydefines the boundaries of the HMA to include the checkerboard lands.

The RMP further sets forth these objectives for managing wild horses in theseHMAs:

1) protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds of wild horses

while retaining their free-roaming nature; 2) provide adequate habitat f or

free-roaming wil d horsesthrough management consistent with principlesof multiple use and environmental protection; and 3) provide opportunity

for the public to view wild horses. (Emphasis added.)

Yet the Proposed Action will result in a de facto redrawing of the HMAboundary, reducing acreage available to wild horses, and reducing the HMA by nearlyhalf. This action is illegal.


18/25


This aspect of the proposed action was discussed in detail in the intervenors legalbrief inRSGA vs. Ken Salazar et al. The arguments in this brief are incorporated here byreference and the brief is provided here for the record as Attachment 3.

Because no statutorily required decisions have been made to change theboundaries of the Divide Basin, any decision to remove all wild horses from thecheckerboard lands (public and private) cannot be made without compliance with thosegoverning laws, regulations and land use plans. As a result, the BLM cannot lawfullyimplement an action to remove all wild horses from the checkerboard lands in the HMAthrough a wild horse gather plan and EA.

C. The 2013 Consent Decree does not trump federal law.

The Proposed Action attempts to adopt agreements that the BLM has made with

the RSGA, the nations largest grazing association, in a consent decree in settlement ofRSGA vs. Ken Salazar, et. al.. However, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuithas explained, an agency violates NEPA when it makes a commitment to engage in aparticular course of action before going through the NEPA process. (See Metcalf v.Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1143-44 (9th Cir.2000). Similarly, although BLM has gonethrough the motions of claiming that some of the commitments contained in the ConsentDecree are subject to the outcome of the NEPA processes that necessarily apply to thesedecisions, it is clear that the die already has been cast with respect to the agencys plansto remove hundreds of horses from the public lands in the Wyoming. This is a violationof both the intent and spirit of NEPA.

Specifically, the consent agreement states that the BLM intends to:

b. Change the Divide Basin HMA to a Herd Area, which would be managed forzero wild horses, and if BLM determines there are more than 100 wild horses

within the Herd Area, the area will be re-gathered to zero wild horses.

Although the BLM has begun the process of amending the RMP to change theAML of the Divide Basin HMA to zero, that process is in the very beginning (scopingstages), yet the BLM is moving forward with a plan to implement it. The EA mustdescribe the action in detail and analyze the compatibility of this action with existing lawor the profound impacts of this action on the wild horses, the environment, taxpayers and

recreational users of this public land area.

The BLM has no biological or ecological basis for zeroing out a herd of wild

horses in an HMA that existed at the time the wild horse statute

was passed in 1971, as is the case with the Divide Basin HMA. This proposed action,which would remove wild horses from the nearly half of the Divide Basin HMA as a firststep to changing its status to a Herd Area managed for zero wild horses, would mean thatthis long-standing HMA, which enjoyed by recreational users who observe and


19/25

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping CommentsJanuary 10, 2014Page 19photograph wild horses, would eliminate the multiple use of these public lands as

required by both the Wild Horse Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act(FLPMA). Currently, while there are other uses of this public land, the two primary usesare by wild horses and livestock. If BLM proceeds with its proposed action to remove

wild horses from the checkerboard portion of this HMA, the predominant single majoruse would be livestock. This is a flagrant violation of both the Wild Horse Act andFLPMA, as stated above.

Not only will this potentially undermine the laws that BLM officials mustimplement here, but also it has practical adverse effects on the resourcesi.e., multipleuse is very beneficial for the environment, and particularly sensitive vegetation, becausedifferent users (e.g., livestock, wild horses) use the lands and vegetation in differentways. When that is eliminated, the resources are subjected to an unnatural use of thelands, which can cause severe long-termdamage to the vegetation. As a result, zeroingout these herds would likelybe devastating for the vegetation in the Salt Wells Creek

HMA, because livestock wouldbe by far the predominant use in this area. (SeeEisenhauer Declaration at Attachment 3B for more information.)

All of these potential impacts or inconsistencies with / violations of federal lawsand policies must be disclosed and analyzed in the EA.

D. BLM Cannot Elevate The Needs of Livestock Over Wild Horses

The Wild Horse Act directs the BLM to protect and manage wild and free-roaming horses . . . as components of the public lands. 16 U.S.C. 1333(a). Towardsthat end, the BLM has the authority to designate and maintain specific ranges on public

lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation. 16 U.S.C. 1333(a). The WildHorse Act requires the BLM to manage wild free-roaming horses . . . in a manner that isdesigned to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the publiclands. Id. To further ensure the objectives of the statute, the Act provides that [a]ll

management activities employed by the BLM shall be at the minimal feasible level. Id.

This mandate was recently explained by the General Accounting Office (GAO):

[t]he passage of the 1971 act changed the way BLM managed horses and burroson public lands. Rather than considering them as feral species that causeddamaged to the rangeland, the agencies had to change their mind-set to protectand manage the animals as an integral part of the ecosystem.

GAO Report to Committee on Natural Resources (October 9, 2008)(emphasisadded).

In addition, FLPMA requires the public lands to be administered for multiple-use, which Congress defined as the management of the public lands and their various

resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the presentand future needs of the American people . . . with consideration being given to therelative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will


20/25

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping CommentsJanuary 10, 2014Page 20give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output. 43 U.S.C.

1702(c). Accordingly, since wild horses and livestock constitute the two primary uses ofthe public lands at issue, it would violate the multiple-use mandate for BLM tocompletely remove all wild horses from any particular HMAi.e., one of the main uses

while continuing to allow livestock grazing in those areas.

The Proposed Action to eliminate wild horses from checkerboard lands in theDivide Basin HMAand the ultimate plan to zero out this HMA entirely -- would deny

wild horses access to federally-designated habitat areas, essentially turning the

public lands portions of the checkerboard over to the RSGA for tax-subsidized

grazing of privately owned livestock.This is illegal under the Wild Horse Act and theFederal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) because it eliminates multipleuses of federal lands in favor of one predominant use: livestock.

Moreover, the proposed amendments illegally elevate the interests of private

livestock owners over the mandatory duty to protect wild horses in this area and over theinterests of those who cherish the opportunity to observe, photograph, and otherwiseenjoy what Congress has declared a national esthetic treasure when it enacted the WildHorse Act. Pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act, livestock grazing on public lands is aprivi lege that can be taken away if necessary to protect the health of the range and

even if necessary to protect the wild horses.Yet, the proposed action presents theopposite view of the law: it makes the rights of the wild horses to exist on these publiclands subservient to the financial interests of the livestock owners who wish to continueto use these very same lands for their own private economic gain and who believe that thewild horses compete with livestock for the resources that are available there.

E. BLM Should Account for The Significant Public Opposition to theSpecific Proposed Changes to the Rock Springs RMP Pursuant to the 2013Consent Decree.

The Proposed Action is strongly opposed by the public. This is demonstrated bythe over 11,700 public comments received by the BLM urging alternatives to theproposed action. SeeAttachment 1 (List of Citizens Commenting on the WyomingDivide Basin Scoping). In addition, nearly 15,000 citizens submitted scoping comments Iopposition to the proposed RMP amendments that would zero out the Divide Basin HMAentirely. The public is opposed to the BLMs planbecause it elevates the narroweconomic interests of a handful of ranchers, who enjoy taxpayer-subsidized grazing on

public land in the Wyoming Checkerboard, over the public interest and the agencys legalmandate to protect and preserve wild horses pursuant to the Wild Free Roaming Horsesand Burros Act (Wild Horse Act). Further, only 29 percent of the public supportslivestock grazing on public lands. (Attachment 11), while 72% support protection of wildhorses and burros on public lands.

The National Academies (NAS) and the National Research Council stated in itsJune 2013 report on the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program that:


21/25


Horse and burro management and control strategies cannot be based on biologicalor cost considerations alone; management should engage interested andaffected parties and also be responsive to public attitudes and preferences .

Three decades ago, the National Research Council reported that public opinionwas the major reason that the Wild Horse and Burro Program existed and was aprimary indicator of management success (NRC, 1982). The same holds truetoday. Thus, BLM should engage with the public in ways that allow public inputto influence agency decisions . . .

See Attachment 9 (Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and BurroProgram: A Way Forward, National Research Council of the National Academies)(emphasis added). Here, the prevailing public opinion is demonstrated by theoverwhelming and unprecedented number of public comments the BLM has received inopposition to the Proposed Action and in support of alternatives. BLM must accurately

record and reported all of these comments. In addition, BLM should incorporate therecommendations and requests made by the public into the EA.

VII. Information that Must Be Provided

A. Accurate and detailed census information

Since BLM is proposing to bring the Divide Basin population down to the minimumdesignated umber, BLM must consider the NAS report and rely only on the best availablecensus data using the best available methodologies. The NAS report raised seriousquestions about BLM census methodology and also transparency in parameters upon

which the Win Equus population modeling is based. Please provide the followinginformation:

1. Census Methodology. Please identify the census methodology, i.e. direct count,simultaneous double-count, photo mark-resight, etc. If calculations are made toaccount for unobserved horses, please disclose and describe the basis on whichsuch calculations are made.

2. All census data between 2004 and 2009 and between 20092013.3. Natural attrition rate for wild horses in the HMA. Please describe the natural

attrition rate, disclose the attrition rate for each year between 2009 and 2013, anddescribe the dependent factors that influence attrition rate.

4. Age demographic for horses returned to the range in the 2009 gather operation.5. Detailed information on number of mares treated with PZP in 2011 roundup vs.total number of mares released. (143 horses released with a 50-50 stallion/mareratio).

B. All monitoring data for the HMA

This information should include, data that clearly delineates the separate impacts


22/25

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping CommentsJanuary 10, 2014Page 22of livestock and wild horse use.

C. Other information

1 All forage allocations (AUMs) within the HMA. This must include detailedinformation on number of livestock that graze in the HMA.

2 Detailed information on population numbers for wildlife species in the HMA, datashould specific which species are hunted in the HMA.

3 A full disclosure of all predator-killing/management, hunting and other lethalactivities in and around the HMA. This information should be obtained from thestate, local and national wildlife services/agencies and should be included in theEA.

Without question, the scientific community acknowledges and understands the

important role of predators in maintaining TNEB. Yet, the BLM fails to addressthis issue. The BLM must gather this important predator information and analyzeit in the EA to determine if cooperative inter-agency agreements might assist the

BLM to fulfill its mission to manage wild horses and burros at a the minimalfeasible level. While the BLM does not manage wildlife, the agency has ongoingrelationships and various memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with federal andstate wildlife agencies and could easily obtain and provide this information to thepublic. Further the agency can amend these MOUs reflect policies that protectpredators and maintain and restore TNEB. Sadly, the BLM has neveracknowledged the important role predators play in TNEB and continues to fail to

take a proactive position on protecting predators.

Research presented by Alyson Andreason, University of Nevada, Reno at the May14, 2012 National Academy of Sciences Wild Horse and Burro ReviewCommittee in Washington, DC, indicates that mountain lions can and do prey onwild horses, particularly foals. The significant level of predation by mountainlions on wild horses that she has documented indicatives that mountain lions canplay a regulating wild horse populations.

4 Range monitoring data, including a detailed breakdown data distinguishing wildhorse impacts from livestock impacts and the following:

5 A listing and description of all horses living within the HMA6 Demographic data on those horses;7 Documented/observed reproduction rates for the HMAs wild horses;8 Detailed information on the distribution of horses;


23/25


9 Information on movement patterns within the range and outside the HMA;10 Documentation of herd population count/census numbers and a complete

demographic breakdown of the wild horse populations within the HMA (numberof bands, stallion/mare ratio, and number of foals, yearlings and three year olds).

11A complete listing and maps of water sources available to wild horses within theHMA.

12A full disclosure and map of all fencing in and around the HMA.13A list and map of all range improvements, such as water restoration and/or

enhancements, both completed in the past 5 years and planned.

14All genetic reports, data or information for the three HMA.15All census data for in and around the HMAincluding photographic

documentation, flight census data, reports and notes.Exact direct count censusnumbers must be providedfor the HMA. The EA may also include adjustmentcalculations and estimated population numbers explained and justified.

Some of the above data may be provided as an appendix to the EAbut all data,information and reports should be made available online for the public to review andprovide comments.

If the BLM fails to have any of the above requested data, the agency should notein the EA that the agency does not have such data.

We expect that the BLM will provide the level of detail and analysis describedabove in an EIS, which is necessary for informed decision-making, particularly for aproposal of this magnitude. I further expect that the BLM will provide a full accountingof how many members of the public submit comments on this Scoping and what theirpositions are, as the agency is legally required to do under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Roy, [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


24/25


Attachments:

Attachment 1: List of Citizens Commenting on the Wyoming Wild Horse Scoping Attachment 2: 2013 Intervenor-Respondents Opening Brief, Rock Springs

Grazing Association vs. Ken Salazar, et al., June 27, 2012 and Exhibitso 2 ABLM Handbooko 2 BCheckerboard Mapo 2 CCongressional Research Service Report: Grazing Feeso 2 DBLM Rangeland Program Glossary

Attachment 3: Intervenor-Defendant Objections to Proposed Consent Decree,Rock Springs Grazing Association vs. Ken Salazar, et al., February 25, 2013

o 3 A: Transcript of September 17, 2012 hearingo 3 B: Declaration of Lloyd Eisenhauero 3 C: Declaration of Allen Rutbergo 3 D: Declaration of Anne Perkinso 3 E: Declaration of Bruce Nocko 3 F: Declaration of Jay Kirkpatricko 3 G: Rangeland Resource Report of Robert Edwardso 3 H: BLM Press Release Announcing FY 2013 Grazing Fee of $1.35 per

AUMo 3 I: BLM Herd Statisticso 3 K: ProPublica, All the Missing Horses: What Happened To The Wild

Horses Tom Davis Bought From the Government?

Attachment 4: Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish HabitatResponse for the Implementation of the Murderers Creek Wild HorseTerritory/Herd Management Area Management Plan on the Malheur NationalForest and Prineville District of the BLM, Watersheds of the Upper John DayRiver Subbasin, Grant County, Oregon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January29, 2013

Attachment 5: Impacts of feral horses on a desert environment, BMC Ecology2009: 9:22

Attachment 6: Wyoming Rangeland Standards Conformance Review Summaryfor the Rock Springs Allotment, BLM.

Attachment 7: Updating the Animal Unit Month, John G. Carter, Ph.D." Attachment 8: General Accounting Office (GAO) Report to Committee on

Natural Resources (October 9, 2008).


25/25


Attachment 9: Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and BurroProgram, National Academies/National Research Council, June 2013

Attachment 10: AWHPC Report on Spay Vac Attachment 11: AWHPC Survey on Public Attitudes Toward Wild Horses/Center

for American Progress Public Opinion Survey on Preferred Uses of Public lands.

Attachment 12: AWHPC vs. Salazar, et. al., Memorandum and Order, JudgeBeryl Howell, May 9, 2012

Attachment 13: NAS Report Key Findings Attachment 14: BLM land exchange policy

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/land_tenure/exchange.html

Attachment 15: BLMs Land Exchange Handbookhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdf

Attachment 16: BLM Wyoming policyhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdf

Attachment 17: Congressional Research Service Report, Land Exchanges:Bureau of Land Management Processes and Issues

http://tinyurl.com/nfcadcb:

Attachment 18: BLM Geocommunicator Map: HMAs and HAs in Rock SpringsDistrict

Attachment 19: ASPCA Poll: Americans Strongly Oppose Slaughter of Horsesfor Human Consumption, Feb. 1, 2012

Attachment 20: Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for a TemporaryRestraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, AWHPC vs. Salazar, July 29, 2011

Attachment 21: RSGA Complaint,Rock Springs Grazing Association vs. KenSalazar, et al., July 25, 2011.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/land_tenure/exchange.htmlhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://tinyurl.com/nfcadcbhttp://tinyurl.com/nfcadcbhttp://tinyurl.com/nfcadcbhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/rawlins/rod/appendix.Par.42703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_CritePria.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdfhttp://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/land_tenure/exchange.html

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	freewildhorses
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Awhpc Divide Basin Scoping Comments 1010114

Documents