January 10, 2014 Jay DEwart, Wild Horse and Burro Specialist BLM Rock Springs Field Office

280 Highway 191 North Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901 Fax: (307) 352-0329 Email: DivideBasin_HMA_WY@blm.gov RE: Divide Basin Scoping Comments Dear Mr. DEwart: We submit the following public comments on behalf of American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC). AWHPC is a national coalition of over 60 historic preservation, conservation, horse advocacy and animal welfare organizations representing over 10 million people nationwide. In addition, the requests for impacts and alternatives to be analyzed that are made by AWHPC are endorsed by more than 11,700 individual citizens who have submitted comments 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 helicopter roundup 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 Allowable Management Level (AML) range of 415 600 horses established in the Green River Resource Management Plan (RMP).

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 2 The most recent population survey by BLM (date undisclosed in the scoping statement) found the population to be just above low AML 439 horses. The estimated 2014 population, based on a 15% population growth rate is 579still within the AML established 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 and infliction of stress and trauma on these horses caused by the roundup is not justified because 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, 2013 Court 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 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, pursuant to the Green River RMP, the HMA boundaries clearly include the checkerboard lands. The removal of all horses from the checkerboard area will result in the de facto zeroing out nearly half of this HMA. In a separate action, the BLM has initiated a scoping process for amendment of this RMP to allow for the zeroing out of the entire Divide Basin HMA. This action to zero out nearly half of this HMA is being done in advance of that RMP amendment and is therefore inconsistent with the existing RMP. Because no statutorily required decisions have been made to change the boundaries of the Divide Basin HMA, any decision to remove all wild horses from the checkerboard lands (public and private) cannot be made without compliance with those governing laws, regulations and land use plans. As a result, the BLM cannot lawfully implement an action to remove all wild horses from the checkerboard lands in this HMA through a wild horse gather plan and EA. The removal of horses from private lands and checkerboard lands in this HMA is illegal.

The Proposed Action to remove all horses from private lands and checkerboard lands 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 a private landowner requesting removal of wild horses shall . . . indicate [in writing] the numbers of wild 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

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 3 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 removing horses 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 legitimately identify those horses that are on private lands in the checkerboard portion of the Divide Basin HMA from those that are using the public lands, this aspect of the Proposed Action is a gross violation of the Wild Horse Act. 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 RSGA for tax-subsidized grazing of privately owned livestock. This is illegal under the Wild Horse 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 of RSGA vs. Ken Salazar, et. al. (See Attachment 4.) However, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has explained, an agency violates NEPA when it makes a commitment to engage in a particular 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 gone through the motions of claiming that some of the commitments contained in the Consent Decree are subject to the outcome of the NEPA 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 turning them over to RSGA.

The Proposed Action would illegally elevate the interests of private livestock owners 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 what Congress has declared a national esthetic treasure when it enacted the Wild Horse Act. The Proposed Action is inconsistent with the recommendations of the National Academy 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.

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 4 The Proposed Action reflects the very approach to wild horse management that the NAS concluded is ineffective as a strategy for wild horse management. The NAS found 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 5 and 6 for report and summary.) The NAS recommended using fertility control as an currently-available tool for managing populations, yet this scoping statement proposes continued removals and states only that fertility control may be used on this wild horse herd. These points will be discussed in further detail in these comments. II. Issues and Impacts That BLM Should Consider While Developing an EA for the Proposed Action

NEPA requires the BLM to take a hard look at the anticipated environmental and cumulative impacts of the proposed actions. As part of its NEPA analysis, the Service must take the hard look mandated by Congress, by evaluating the unique resources that will be impacted by the proposed actions. As BLM undertakes the process of removing all wild horses from a land area that comprises nearly half of the Divide Basin HMA, it should consider several issues that impact the health of the range. Specific issues are outlines below. Any issue raised in the attachments to these comments not specifically outlined below are herby incorporated by reference and should also be considered by the agency. A. Impacts From Livestock Grazing

The environmental impacts of livestock grazing, especially since, after the proposed action, it will be the predominant use within the Checkerboard lands, include severe, 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, the resources are subjected to an unnatural use of the lands, which can cause severe longterm damage to the vegetation. As a result, eliminating wild horses from the checkerboard portion of the HMA and maintaining reducing the wild horse population within the HMA to the low AML of 415, when the established range allows a maximum population of 600 horses, would significantly impact the vegetation because the primary use would be by cattle and sheep in a highly concentrated and vegetative damaging manner. This is especially true in this HMA, because livestock would be by far the predominant use in this area. (See Eisenhauer Declaration at Attachment 3B for more information.) Additionally, the removal and reduction of the wild horse population in this area will make more forage available for private livestock grazing, creating the likelihood that livestock grazing levels will increase in this area. All impacts of livestock grazing on the

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 5 environment must be evaluated in the EA including the potential for exacerbated environmental impacts due to increased livestock grazing. The EA must clearly take into consideration differences in the ways wild horses and livestock utilize the land and the different 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 grazing on the environment in this area. The specific way in which BLM attributes impacts to different uses of the public lands, and the basis on which BLM delineates wild horse impacts from livestock impacts must also be addressed in the EIS. As the record in RSGA vs. Salazar (D. WY.) shows, it is the livestock and not the wild horses that are causing the most serious damage to the public lands in Wyoming. The BLMs own official rangeland health assessment documents (Attachment 6) show that 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 -- damage that BLM is required by statute to take into account in deciding how best to balance the use 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 by reference.) 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. ("Cattle consumed 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 the BLM 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 164 wild horses from the Divide Basin HMA. Such considerations should include the impacts of stampeding horses and helicopter drives on threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna, including sage grouse. The proposed roundup and removal operation would result in intensive activities that will have negative impacts on this sensitive high desert environment. C. Impacts of Wild Horse Eradication

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

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 6 D. Impacts to Recreational Users

Removing all wild horses from the checkerboard portion of the Divide Basin HMA 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 to reduce by 164 the number of wild horses in the HMA even though the population is well within AML -- will negatively impact recreational users of these public lands by making wild horse viewing more difficult. The Divide Basin HMA is popular with photographers 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 public lands 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 impacts when 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) costs for roundup, and (3) lifetime holding of horses. The BLM should compare these costs to the economic benefits to American taxpayers of reducing or eliminating taxpayersubsidized livestock grazing in this area. (See Attachment 2C for documentation that public lands livestock grazing costs taxpayers as much as $500 million per year.) The potential economic benefits of wild horse ecotourism and the impacts of the loss of those benefits should be included here. F. Social Impacts

The American public has a deep and passionate connection to wild horses. As the Wild Horse Act recognizes wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the west. 16 U.S.C. 1331. The BLM should consider the social impacts of zeroing out nearly half of the Divide Basin HMA for wild horses, for which an overwhelming majority of the public wants protection. Social impacts on those citizens and tourists interested in viewing wild horses living naturally on protected public 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 natural resources. Thus the BLM must consider both legal and social factors and impacts, in making land use decisions, such as setting and maintenance of AML and grazing allocations. This was highlighted in a 1982 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council report on the BLMs wild horse and burro program: Attitudes and values that influence and direct public priorities regarding the size, distribution, and condition of horse herds, as well as their

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 7 accessibility to public viewing and study, must be an important factor in the determination of what constitutes excess numbers of animals in any area . . . [A]n otherwise satisfactory population level may be controversial or unacceptable if the strategy for achieving it is not appropriately responsive to public attitudes and values. . . . Biologically, the area may be able to support 500 cattle and 500 horses, and may be carrying them. But if the weight of public opinion calls for 1,000 horses, the area can be said in this context to have an excess of 500 cattle. For these reasons, the term excess has both biological and social components. In the above example, biological excess constitutes any number of animals, regardless of which class above 1,000. Social excess depends on management policies, legal issues, and prevailing public preference.. The importance of social considerations was reaffirmed in the NAS report of 2013. See 9. Here the public opposition to the BLMs plan to remove 164 wild horses from the Divide Basin HMA and eliminate all wild horses from the checkerboard portion of the 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 also demonstrated by the nearly 15,000 public comments submitted in response to the BLMs Scoping 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 that wild horses remain on the range. This fact provides sufficient reason for BLM to reanalyze the Proposed Action, taking into account the publics preference that wild horses be left on the range and maintained throughout this HMA. Finally, the EIS must consider the social factors that play a role in land use decisions and management policies, and it must adequately consider the BLMs authority to modify land use decisions, such as wild horse AMLs and livestock grazing allocations through a variety of tools, including the agencys adaptive management strategy as well as agency regulations. Clearly, the prevailing public preference supports a reallocation of resources 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 to reduce the habitat for wild horses within the HMA and to reduce the population level despite 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

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 8 exploration and extraction. H. Wild Horse Impacts

The BLM should consider all of the impacts on wild horses of removal, transport and 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 the November 2011 Great Divide Basin roundup so that the impacts of the roundup on the horses can adequately be assessed. The spreadsheet should include the identification number (freeze brand), age, sex, color and description, and disposition of each animal (i.e. which facility animal was shipped to and date shipped) and current status of each animal (i.e. holding; adopted; shipped, death, released). Mortality rates during all roundup activities prior to arrival at initial holding facility. Mortality rate and causes of death for horses in short term holding facilities (time period from 0 to 3 months; 3 to 6 months; over 6 months). Mortality rate and causes of death for horses in long term holding facilities. Percentage breakdown of the fates of horses removed from the range (percent adopted, percent sent to long-term holding, percent that die). Listing and information on veterinary and husbandry issues faced by horses captured and placed into short and long term holding, including, but not limited to the problems caused by the stress of capture and transition to captivity.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

The BLM must also analyze the impacts of: vii. A helicopter stampede conducted in summer, when temperatures are high and foals are small and vulnerable to physical exertion and trauma. Removing 164 horses and sending them to holding facilities where they are at increased risk of injury, disease and death. Removing all horses from checkerboard lands, reducing the habitat

viii.

ix.

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 9 area in Divide Basin by nearly half. x. Adding 164 horses to holding facilities that are already at capacity with 50,000 horses and burros stockpiled. These horses are at increased risk of slaughter due to BLM already selling off horses to a known kill buyer in order to reduce holding pressures. Removal, transport, maintenance in short- and long-term holding facilities. The Proposed Action on wild horses health, herd structure and natural behaviors, particularly when compared to alternative actions that would allow wild horses to remain on the range.

xi.

xii.

Analysis should address the implications of BLMs lack of holding space and the stockpiling of 50,000 wild horses in holding facilities on the long-term welfare and safety of horses captured and removed from these HMAs. Many of these issues are further explored in the GAO Report (Attachment 8) and are thereby incorporated by reference. Impacts of Fertility Control on Divide Basin Horses

I.

The scoping notice states only that the project may use a fertility control vaccine on 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 be used 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 vaccine other than PZP native or 22 is contemplated, then the BLM must provide the research indicating that it is safe. Both Spay Vac and GonaCon have been associated with serious side effects. The information in Attachments 9 and 10 are hereby incorporated by reference. J. BLM Should Address The Concerns Raised In the GAO Report

In October 2008, the GAO issued a report concerning the BLMs Wild Horse and Burro Program (Attachment 8). In that report, the GAO explained: [s[ince the passage of the 1971 act, there has been controversy over the number of wild horses and burros that BLM manages in the wild and the amount of public lands available for their management. There is concern by some, including wild horse and burro advocacy groups, that the number of animals managed in the wild is too low to protect their genetic integrity; that the numbers are based on insufficient rangeland monitoring data; and that BLM gives preference to other users of the range, primarily livestock and wildlife. For instance, groups often

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 10 point out that BLM permits more cattle and sheep to graze on BLM managed lands than horses. This report goes on to explain several significant shortcomings of BLMs current management of wild horses. The Proposed Action continues this failed management strategy. The GAO report (Attachment 8) and all issues outlined therein are hereby incorporated by reference. K. BLM Should Consider The Findings In The NAS Report

The Wild Horse Act provides that, [f]or the purpose of furthering knowledge of wild horse and burro population dynamics and their interrelationship with wildlife, forage, water resources, and assisting him in making determinations as to what constitutes excess animals, the Secretary shall contract for a research study of animals with 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. 16 U.S.C. 1333(b)(3). In 2011 the BLM commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a review of federal wild horse and burro program. The BLM paid for the study and set its scope of work. In June 2013, the NAS released its report, Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward. The report was harshly critical of the BLMs current approach to wild horse and burro management, warning that continuation of business as usual will be expensive and unproductive for the BLM and 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 hereby incorporated by reference, when considering the Proposed Action. In particular, the BLM should consider the following key issues: (1) Currently the BLM does not use any science as a basis for allocating forage and habitat resources to various uses. In addition, the method for establishing, monitoring, and adjusting AMLs 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 equity are needed in establishing these levels, monitoring them and adjusting them. BLM current management practices facilitate high rates of population growth. BLM should engage with the public in ways that allow public input to influence agency decisions, develop an iterative process between public

(2)

(3)

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 11 deliberation and scientific discovery, and co-design the participatory process 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 consider

NEPA requires BLM to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to determine the relative environmental benefits or risks of each proposal, including a no-action alternative that would allow the affected HMAs to remain at their current AMLs, and one that 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 wild horse roundup and removal. A. Decrease Livestock Animal Unit Months (AUM); Increase Wild Horse AMLs The BLM currently allocates just 4,980 7,200 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) in the Divide Basin HMA, while 126,705 AUMs are allocated for livestock in the four HMAs that fall fully or partially within the HMA. The BLM must include an Alternative for decreasing livestock forage allocations and increasing wild horse forage allocations in the revised RMP. This is consistent with the NAS finding that how Appropriate Management 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 equity are 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 an area that comprises nearly half of the HMA. The BLM has the clear authority to implement alternatives that reduce livestock grazing and increase wild horse AML: CFR 4710.5 - Closure to livestock grazing. (a) If necessary to provide habitat for wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 12 wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment or injury, the authorized officer may close appropriate 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 be closed to grazing under permit or lease by domestic horses and burros. (c) Closure may be temporary or permanent. After appropriate public consultation, a Notice 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 would continue only IN EXCHANGE FOR tolerating the presence of wild horses on the private lands in the checkerboard and on the public lands where they have a RIGHT to exist. If ranchers do not agree to this arrangement, then their PRIVILEGE to graze livestock on the public lands at taxpayer subsidized rates, which is given solely at the DISCRETION of the Interior Secretary shall be REVOKED. B. Undertake Land Swaps to Resolve Conflicts in Checkerboard Areas Land swaps can be undertaken to create contiguous habitat areas for federally protected 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 that resulted from early land grants. Land consolidation can increase the efficiency of land management while decreasing management costs. . . . BLM typically completes dozens of 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 BLMs Land Exchange Handbook (Attachment 15) http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Ma nagement/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdf 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 Congressional Research Service Report, Land Exchanges: Bureau of Land Management Processes and Issues (Attachment 17) http://tinyurl.com/nfcadcb:

ii.

iii.

iv.

The CRS Report shows clearly that land exchanges have precedent in checkerboard areas:

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 13 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. Land consolidation can increase the efficiency of land management while decreasing management costs. . . . BLM typically completes dozens of exchanges each year under FLPMA and acts of Congress. Clearly, land exchanges in the checkerboard portions of the Divide Basin HMA to attain contiguous parcels of public land present BLM with a solution to the management difficulties the present alternating public/private land parcel configuration creates. This would be a clear alternative for the management of wild horses in the Divide Basin HMA that 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 wild horses 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 of wild 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 total acres; 47% zeroed out.. Total habitat loss for wild horses: 372,109 acres. Rock Springs HA (WY0038) HA - originally 1,916,241 acres was combined with the Salt Wells Creek HA (WY001) - originally 654,727 acres - to form the Salt Wells Creek HMA. Approximately 22%, or 565, 612 acres of this area was zeroed out for wild horses.

See Map at Attachment 18. This Proposed Action and the RMP amendments sought by the BLM to reduce the Divide Basin AML to 0 are part of a trajectory that leads to the elimination of wild horses in the Wyoming Checkerboard. Given that the BLM has already eliminated 1.3 million acres of wild horse habitat in Wyoming, as well as the prevailing public sentiment that favors wild horses, and the NAS recommendation that standards for equity be used in making resource allocations, the action outlined in the Scoping Notice is

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 14 unjustified and must be abandoned. E. Manage Wild Horses Using Fertility Control In Accordance With NAS Guidelines with Goal of Reducing/ Eliminating removals. The GAO report confirms that the BLMs current practice of rounding up and removing wild horses from the range in numbers that far exceed adoption demand is fiscally unsustainable. Since the American public overwhelmingly opposes horse slaughter (Attachment 19), the only solution is to reduce removals to correspond to adoption demand (under 3,000 per year) or to manage horses on the range and reduce removals entirely. Indeed this is the recommendation of the NAS in its 2013 report (Attachment 9). The NAS concluded: Tools [including PZP fertility control] already exist for BLM to address many challenges. p. 13 (P. 303 confirms that BLM is not using PZP in a manner that will impact population growth.) In the short term, more intensive management of free-ranging horses and burros would 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 recommended by the NAS, namely: Most promising fertility-control methods for free-ranging horses or burros are porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccines and GonaCon vaccine for females and chemical vasectomy for males. This conclusion is based on criteria such as delivery method, availability, efficacy, duration of effect, and potential for side effects. Although applying these methods usually requires gathering horses and burros, that process is no more disruptive than the current method of population control gathering and removal without the further disruption of removing animals. Considering all the current options, these three methods, either alone or in combination, offer the most acceptable alternative to removing animals for managing population numbers.

However, with regard to GonaCon and chemical vasectomy, the NAS panel recommended further studies before use in wild horse herds. The panel also noted that the reversibility 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 and questions about reversibility.) Therefore, the only fertility control method that is ready to use on wild herds is PZP native or PZP-22.

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 15 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 fertility control 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 RMP Amendments Dictated By The 2013 Consent Decree

In addition to the general issues outlined above, there are several specific issues that BLM should consider while analyzing the Proposed Action, which the agency states is required by the 2013 Consent Decree. The concerns related to the plans for Divide Basin 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 documents not specifically outlined below are also expressly incorporated by reference, and therefore must be addressed by BLM in its NEPA process.

A. Plan to remove all horses from the private lands in these two HMAs violates the 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 of Wyoming 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 lands including 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 private lands 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. BLM regulations (43 C.F.R. 4720.2-1) state specifically that a private landowner requesting removal of wild horses shall . . . indicate [in writing] the numbers of wild 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 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 (500,000+ acres) in perpetuity. As a result, the proposed action to remove horses from the private lands in the Divide Basin HMA is a gross violation of the Wild Horse Act and its regulations. (Attachments 2 and 3)

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 16

In addition, this aspect of the proposed action would have profound impacts on this HMA, and those impacts must be considered in the EA. 2. It is impossible to remove horses from private land without also removing federally-protected horses living on public lands at the same time. Due to the presence of checkerboard lands (alternating public/private land parcels) in nearly half of the Divide Basin HMA, it will be logistically impossible to remove wild horses from the private lands in these HMAs without also removing 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.)), because of the configuration of the Checkerboard, there simply is no practical way to differentiate between horses that are on the private lands versus those that are on the 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 fencing public lands and harming wildlife). As former BLM official Lloyd Eisenhauer, who has extensive experience with the HMAs in the Rock Springs and Rawlins BLM districts, explained in a declaration for the intervenors in RSGA vs. Ken Salazar, et. al. (Attachment 3B): due to state laws, property lines, and intermingled lands, it is impossible 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 horses that 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 the country 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, considering that 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 those horses that are on private lands in the checkerboard portions of the Divide Basin HMA from those that are using the public lands, this aspect of the Proposed Action is a gross violation of the Wild Horse Act.

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 17

The EA must provide detailed information and description of this aspect of the proposed action, including how the crucial determination regarding which horses are 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 the Wyoming checkerboard. The proposed removal of all horses from the checkerboard lands within the Divide Basin HMA would violate the Wild Horse Act and the RMPs governing these two areas. 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 RSGA for tax-subsidized grazing of privately owned livestock. This is illegal under the Wild Horse 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 use plans. The Scoping Statement states: The low Appropriate Management Level (AML) of 415 wild horses would be 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 with not supported by the Green River RMP, which sets the Divide Basin AML at a range up to 600 horses and clearly defines the boundaries of the HMA to include the checkerboard lands. The RMP further sets forth these objectives for managing wild horses in these HMAs: 1) protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds of wild horses while retaining their free-roaming nature; 2) provide adequate habitat for free-roaming wild horses through management consistent with principles of 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 HMA boundary, reducing acreage available to wild horses, and reducing the HMA by nearly half. This action is illegal.

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 18 This aspect of the proposed action was discussed in detail in the intervenors legal brief in RSGA vs. Ken Salazar et al. The arguments in this brief are incorporated here by reference and the brief is provided here for the record as Attachment 3. Because no statutorily required decisions have been made to change the boundaries of the Divide Basin, any decision to remove all wild horses from the checkerboard lands (public and private) cannot be made without compliance with those governing laws, regulations and land use plans. As a result, the BLM cannot lawfully implement an action to remove all wild horses from the checkerboard lands in the HMA through 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 of RSGA vs. Ken Salazar, et. al. . However, as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has explained, an agency violates NEPA when it makes a commitment to engage in a particular 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 gone through the motions of claiming that some of the commitments contained in the Consent Decree are subject to the outcome of the NEPA 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. Specifically, the consent agreement states that the BLM intends to: b. Change the Divide Basin HMA to a Herd Area, which would be managed for zero 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 the AML of the Divide Basin HMA to zero, that process is in the very beginning (scoping stages), yet the BLM is moving forward with a plan to implement it. The EA must describe the action in detail and analyze the compatibility of this action with existing law or 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 first step to changing its status to a Herd Area managed for zero wild horses, would mean that this long-standing HMA, which enjoyed by recreational users who observe and

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 19 photograph 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 uses are 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 major use would be livestock. This is a flagrant violation of both the Wild Horse Act and FLPMA, as stated above. Not only will this potentially undermine the laws that BLM officials must implement here, but also it has practical adverse effects on the resources i.e., multiple use is very beneficial for the environment, and particularly sensitive vegetation, because different users (e.g., livestock, wild horses) use the lands and vegetation in different ways. When that is eliminated, the resources are subjected to an unnatural use of the lands, which can cause severe long-term damage to the vegetation. As a result, zeroing out these herds would likely be devastating for the vegetation in the Salt Wells Creek HMA, because livestock would be by far the predominant use in this area. (See Eisenhauer Declaration at Attachment 3B for more information.) All of these potential impacts or inconsistencies with / violations of federal laws and 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 freeroaming horses . . . as components of the public lands. 16 U.S.C. 1333(a). Towards that 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 Wild Horse Act requires the BLM to manage wild free-roaming horses . . . in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands. 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 burros on public lands. Rather than considering them as feral species that caused damaged to the rangeland, the agencies had to change their mind-set to protect and manage the animals as an integral part of the ecosystem. GAO Report to Committee on Natural Resources (October 9, 2008)(emphasis added). In addition, FLPMA requires the public lands to be administered for multipleuse, 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 present and future needs of the American people . . . with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 20 give 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 of the public lands at issue, it would violate the multiple-use mandate for BLM to completely remove all wild horses from any particular HMA i.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 the Divide Basin HMA and 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 the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) because it eliminates multiple uses 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 the interests of those who cherish the opportunity to observe, photograph, and otherwise enjoy what Congress has declared a national esthetic treasure when it enacted the Wild Horse Act. Pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act, livestock grazing on public lands is a privilege 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 the opposite view of the law: it makes the rights of the wild horses to exist on these public lands subservient to the financial interests of the livestock owners who wish to continue to use these very same lands for their own private economic gain and who believe that the wild horses compete with livestock for the resources that are available there. E. BLM Should Account for The Significant Public Opposition to the Specific Proposed Changes to the Rock Springs RMP Pursuant to the 2013 Consent Decree.

The Proposed Action is strongly opposed by the public. This is demonstrated by the over 11,700 public comments received by the BLM urging alternatives to the proposed action. See Attachment 1 (List of Citizens Commenting on the Wyoming Divide Basin Scoping). In addition, nearly 15,000 citizens submitted scoping comments I opposition to the proposed RMP amendments that would zero out the Divide Basin HMA entirely. The public is opposed to the BLMs plan because it elevates the narrow economic 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 legal mandate to protect and preserve wild horses pursuant to the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Wild Horse Act). Further, only 29 percent of the public supports livestock grazing on public lands. (Attachment 11), while 72% support protection of wild horses and burros on public lands. The National Academies (NAS) and the National Research Council stated in its June 2013 report on the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program that:

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 21

Horse and burro management and control strategies cannot be based on biological or cost considerations alone; management should engage interested and affected parties and also be responsive to public attitudes and preferences. Three decades ago, the National Research Council reported that public opinion was the major reason that the Wild Horse and Burro Program existed and was a primary indicator of management success (NRC, 1982). The same holds true today. Thus, BLM should engage with the public in ways that allow public input to influence agency decisions . . . See Attachment 9 (Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward, National Research Council of the National Academies) (emphasis added). Here, the prevailing public opinion is demonstrated by the overwhelming and unprecedented number of public comments the BLM has received in opposition to the Proposed Action and in support of alternatives. BLM must accurately record and reported all of these comments. In addition, BLM should incorporate the recommendations 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 minimum designated umber, BLM must consider the NAS report and rely only on the best available census data using the best available methodologies. The NAS report raised serious questions about BLM census methodology and also transparency in parameters upon which the Win Equus population modeling is based. Please provide the following information: 1. Census Methodology. Please identify the census methodology, i.e. direct count, simultaneous double-count, photo mark-resight, etc. If calculations are made to account for unobserved horses, please disclose and describe the basis on which such calculations are made. 2. All census data between 2004 and 2009 and between 2009 2013. 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, and describe 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/mare ratio). B. All monitoring data for the HMA

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

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 22 of livestock and wild horse use. C. Other information 1 All forage allocations (AUMs) within the HMA. This must include detailed information on number of livestock that graze in the HMA. 2 Detailed information on population numbers for wildlife species in the HMA, data should specific which species are hunted in the HMA. 3 A full disclosure of all predator-killing/management, hunting and other lethal activities in and around the HMA. This information should be obtained from the state, local and national wildlife services/agencies and should be included in the EA. Without question, the scientific community acknowledges and understands the important role of predators in maintaining TNEB. Yet, the BLM fails to address this issue. The BLM must gather this important predator information and analyze it 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 minimal feasible level. While the BLM does not manage wildlife, the agency has ongoing relationships and various memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with federal and state wildlife agencies and could easily obtain and provide this information to the public. Further the agency can amend these MOUs reflect policies that protect predators and maintain and restore TNEB. Sadly, the BLM has never acknowledged 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 May 14, 2012 National Academy of Sciences Wild Horse and Burro Review Committee in Washington, DC, indicates that mountain lions can and do prey on wild horses, particularly foals. The significant level of predation by mountain lions on wild horses that she has documented indicatives that mountain lions can play a regulating wild horse populations. 4 Range monitoring data, including a detailed breakdown data distinguishing wild horse impacts from livestock impacts and the following: 5 A listing and description of all horses living within the HMA 6 Demographic data on those horses; 7 Documented/observed reproduction rates for the HMAs wild horses; 8 Detailed information on the distribution of horses;

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 23

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 (number of bands, stallion/mare ratio, and number of foals, yearlings and three year olds).

11 A complete listing and maps of water sources available to wild horses within the HMA. 12 A full disclosure and map of all fencing in and around the HMA. 13 A list and map of all range improvements, such as water restoration and/or enhancements, both completed in the past 5 years and planned. 14 All genetic reports, data or information for the three HMA. 15 All census data for in and around the HMA including photographic documentation, flight census data, reports and notes. Exact direct count census numbers must be provided for the HMA. The EA may also include adjustment calculations and estimated population numbers explained and justified. Some of the above data may be provided as an appendix to the EA but all data, information and reports should be made available online for the public to review and provide comments. If the BLM fails to have any of the above requested data, the agency should note in the EA that the agency does not have such data. We expect that the BLM will provide the level of detail and analysis described above in an EIS, which is necessary for informed decision-making, particularly for a proposal of this magnitude. I further expect that the BLM will provide a full accounting of how many members of the public submit comments on this Scoping and what their positions are, as the agency is legally required to do under the National Environmental Policy Act. Sincerely,

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

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 24 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 Exhibits o 2 A BLM Handbook o 2 B Checkerboard Map o 2 C Congressional Research Service Report: Grazing Fees o 2 D BLM 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 hearing o 3 B: Declaration of Lloyd Eisenhauer o 3 C: Declaration of Allen Rutberg o 3 D: Declaration of Anne Perkins o 3 E: Declaration of Bruce Nock o 3 F: Declaration of Jay Kirkpatrick o 3 G: Rangeland Resource Report of Robert Edwards o 3 H: BLM Press Release Announcing FY 2013 Grazing Fee of $1.35 per AUM o 3 I: BLM Herd Statistics o 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 MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Implementation of the Murderers Creek Wild Horse Territory/Herd Management Area Management Plan on the Malheur National Forest and Prineville District of the BLM, Watersheds of the Upper John Day River Subbasin, Grant County, Oregon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January 29, 2013 Attachment 5: Impacts of feral horses on a desert environment, BMC Ecology 2009: 9:22 Attachment 6: Wyoming Rangeland Standards Conformance Review Summary for 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).

AWHPC Divide Basin Scoping Comments January 10, 2014 Page 25 Attachment 9: Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program, 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, Judge Beryl 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 Handbook http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Manage ment/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdf Attachment 16: BLM Wyoming policy http://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 Springs District Attachment 19: ASPCA Poll: Americans Strongly Oppose Slaughter of Horses for Human Consumption, Feb. 1, 2012 Attachment 20: Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, AWHPC vs. Salazar, July 29, 2011 Attachment 21: RSGA Complaint, Rock Springs Grazing Association vs. Ken Salazar, et al., July 25, 2011.