BLM Bible Springs Wild Horse comments by Grandm Gregg

1 May 20, 2014 BLM Cedar City Field Office 176 E. DL Sargent Drive Cedar City, Utah 84721 Attn: Cedar City Field Office Manager blm_ut_biblesprings@blm.gov Attn: Juan Palma, State Director jpalma@blm.gov Attn: Elizabeth Burghard, Field Manager eburghar@blm.gov Re: Public Comment on Bible Springs Complex Wild Horse Gather Environmental Assessment UT-C010-2014-0035 As an American citizen, environmental researcher and a life-long visitor to the state of Utah, I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the proposed Bible Springs Complex environmental assessment. The federal government does not own land in the West. These are not “state lands” and not “federal lands” and not even “government lands”.” They are public lands. The American people own the public lands in the West and they are administered on our behalf by the national government under laws and regulations. This land belongs to all citizens of the United States, not the federal government. The 1971 Congressional Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, (Public Law 92-195), declares that the land where wild horses and burros were found at the time of the passing of the Act, is to be devoted principally but not exclusively to the wild horses’ and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands. Definition of principally: First, highest, foremost in importance, rank, worth or degree, chief, mainly, largely, chiefly, especially, particularly, mostly, primarily, above all, predominantly, in the main, for the most part, first and foremost. It is the law of the United States of America and any policy or regulation or memorandum of understanding or environmental assessment or Record of Decision or Finding of No Significance that BLM or other governmental agency writes or proposes or agrees to or takes action on that does not come under the umbrella of the law is therefore illegal. Extortion and Conspiracy Extortion (also called “shakedown”) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. The actual obtainment of money or property or service is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of forcefulness which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property or service to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. If the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) caves into the bullying tactics and threats of illegal action, by ranchers and local county officials in Utah who want to keep ranges open for cattle grazing for private or corporate profit, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the citizens of the United States of America have fallen victim to extortion. This shows a very, very sad state of affairs for our great nation. 2 The actions stated in the BLM’s environmental assessment propose a massive wild horse roundup in the Bible Springs Complex. Iron County Utah commissioners and ranchers recently and publically gave the BLM an ultimatum: Come up with an immediate plan to capture and remove wild horses from the area or residents will do it themselves. Ranchers are scapegoating federally protected wild horses for the damage of the range when in reality millions of cattle are permitted to graze on our public lands. As an example, take a look at one cattle ranch with a public grazing permit as discussed in the below news article. This rancher’s private 7,000 acre property could support about 30 cattle on a year round basis, using BLM’s own 240 acres per horse per year estimate for comparison. http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wh_b/rangeland_health.print.html Because the rancher has a grazing permit to use public land, he runs 300 mother cows and calves. In other words 90% his cattle operation is subsidized by his use of the public land. This exemplifies the reasoning behind BLM’s current proposal to capture and remove the wild horses from their legally designated land – pressure from local privately owned domestic livestock owners. And to add to the illegal actions, this rancher proposes to amend his personal ranch management problems by shooting the federally protected wild horses. If this ranch owner cannot manage his own land and livestock sufficiently enough to provide the lifestyle he wants, then that is proof that he is an incompetent ranch manager and he deserves the results of his deficient management. Instead this rancher is refusing to follow the law and BLM’s request to reduce his privately owned domestic livestock on public land. As proven by the BLM’s announcement to capture and remove wild horses from their legally authorized land the agency is cowering to his demands. This is illegal and known as extortion and must be stopped. Tensions rising over public land use in Utah, the West Wood runs 300 mother cows and their calves (and keeps his 18 bulls separately) on a 7,000-acre ranch that’s been in his family nearly 100 years. The cows roam there and on leased state land in the winter. In the summer, he has grazing permits on roughly 60,000 adjacent BLM acres, just south of the Bible Springs Complex of wild horse herd management areas. “Since the government took over, the horses have evolved into inbred mongrels that you can’t give away,” says Wood. “The cheapest, most efficient way to handle the horses is with a .30-06 (rifle). But nobody wants to say that.” In September, the BLM asked Wood and other Utah ranchers to slash their grazing in half so that horses would have more feed on the drought-stricken range. Like others who received similar letters, Wood did not comply. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57876473-78/blm-horses-county-says.html.csp As shown in the above article, Matt Wood and other members of the Iron County commission have been quoted as to their intent to break the federal law by killing federally protected wild horses. Those threatening to take this action are threatening to break a federal law and their threat alone is a conspiracy against the citizens of the United States of America. Will BLM cower to these criminals and look the other way and allow them to bully the American people and the government of the United States? If they do, then per the law, all participating members of BLM agency are equally guilty as accessories to the conspiracy. 3 A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act, and then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. All collaborators involved and showing intent to break the law can be charged with conspiracy to commit the crime, regardless of whether the crime itself is actually attempted or completed. An accessory to conspiracy must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. If BLM law enforcement can’t stop the threatening parties from committing crimes that they have announced they will carry out, then it is BLM’s legal duty to report those crimes to the proper authority that is capable of stopping the crime against the American people. If they don’t … then they are clearly accessories to the crimes. Employees of the Bureau of Land Management are not exempt from charges of conspiracy. NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) is the foundation of modern American environmental protection in the United States and its commonwealths, territories, and possessions. NEPA requires that Federal agency decision makers, in carrying out their duties, use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other needs of present and future generations of Americans. NEPA provides a mandate and a framework for Federal agencies to consider all reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of their proposed actions and to involve and inform the public in the decision making process. The goal of the implementing procedures for NEPA is to ensure that the environmental impacts of any proposed decisions are fully considered and that appropriate steps are taken to mitigate potential environmental impacts. In passing NEPA, Congress “recognized the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment” and set out “to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a). To bring federal action in line with Congress’ goals and to foster environmentally informed decision-making by federal agencies, NEPA “establishes ‘action-forcing’ procedures that require agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989)). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that to ensure that environmental assessment statements reflect a careful consideration of the available science, and that areas of disagreement or uncertainty are flagged rather than being swept under the carpet. Thus, the public and the decision makers must resist the urgings of agencies that low-probability risks of very serious harms be dismissed from consideration or that the risk is evaluated only under the agency’s favored theoretical model without taking into account the possibility that other credible models might be correct. 4 EA BACKGROUND SECTION 1.2 – Fluffed Science VS Validated Science The EA states: “Since the passage of the WFRHBA, management knowledge regarding horse population levels has increased. For example, wild horses are capable of increasing numbers 15-20% annually (NAS 2013), resulting in the doubling of wild horse populations about every 3 years.” This EA statement is not validated – it is a supposition based on speculation – not fact. I have a specific and strong objection to this erroneous and non-verified BLM statement regarding wild horse herd population increase. Just because BLM has said it over and over does not make it scientifically valid. Contrary to the above EA statement, the NAS actually stated, “The recent National Academy of Science (NAS) report on the Wild Horse and Burro Program determined that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has no evidence of excess wild horses and burros; because the BLM has failed to use scientifically sound methods to estimate the populations” (NAS, 2013). Where is the BLM’s scientific data research that proves the EA statement? This BLM EA statement is scientifically inaccurate as proven with this recent scientific research report that I require be reviewed and included in an amended and factual environmental assessment: WILD HORSE POPULATION GROWTH Research Collaboration by Kathleen Gregg Environmental Researcher Lisa LeBlanc Environmental Researcher Jesica Johnston Environmental Scientist April 25, 2014 INTRODUCTION The recent National Academy of Science (NAS) report on the Wild Horse and Burro Program determined that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has no evidence of excess wild horses and burros; because the BLM has failed to use scientifically sound methods to estimate the populations (NAS, 2013). The NAS cited two chief criticisms of the Wild Horse and Burro Program: unsubstantiated population estimates in herd management areas (HMA), and management decisions that are not based in science (NAS, 2013). Effective wild horse and burro management is dependent on accurate population counts and defensible assumptions. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) routinely uses the assumption that wild horse and burro herds increase annually at an average rate of 20%. However, our review of available scientific literature combined with an analysis of BLM data for 5,859 wild horses found that approximately 50% of the foals survived to the age of 1 year, which indicates a 10% population growth rate based on yearling survival rates. METHODS AND DATA The data and analysis is based on the BLM’s wild horse and burro removal and processing documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act. The data sets were evaluated separately, and then combined to total 5,859 wild horses, captured, aged, and branded by BLM. This data is the basis for the analysis in this report and the accompanying chart in table 1 below. 5 Burro data was also calculated for foal and yearling survival. That data indicated a 7% population growth rate for burros based on yearling survival, but that data is not included here as burros are not present in all of the HMAs. The data was collected from 4 herds captured by BLM in Nevada and California in 2010 and 2011. The data below in table 1 shows the individual herds and accumulated age structure data which supports the overall conclusion. Wild horse foals and yearlings were tallied for population increases and in all four samples, recorded a combined foaling rate of less than 20%, but only half or 50% survived to the age of 1 year (see table 1 below). Table 1 Age Structure Yearling Survival Rate 6 DISCUSSION This research does not include or reflect the additional adult mortality rates due to the complexity of population dynamics, but does raise serious questions about the validity of the BLM’s assumed 20% annual herd population growth rate. Furthermore, the BLMs assumption fails to consider that wild horse populations are dynamic due to isolation and have varied rates of reproduction and survival due to changing climates, forage, competition, disturbance and environmental conditions. All these are factors that can lead to varied herd growth rates and each herd should be evaluated separately. This research paper is supported by previous studies using age structure data completed by Michael L. Wolfe, Jr. in 1980 titled “Feral Horse Demography: A Preliminary Report”. Mr. Wolfe cited observations in 12 HMAs, over a period of 2 to 5 years, and covered a much broader range over six Western states. He questioned the annual rate increase of 20%, and found that first-year survival rates to range between 50% and 70% (Wolfe, 1980). Other supporting research includes The National Academy of Science National Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro report of 1982, which states, “…several biases in the (BLM) census data, cited or calculated rates of increase based on a number of published values for reproduction and survival rates, as well as sex and age ratios, and concluded annual rates of increase of ten percent or less” (NAS, 1982). The NAS 2013 report also used age structure data to estimate population growth. However, the report used foaling rates to draw conclusions about the population growth; rather than first year survival rates (NAS, pg.51-52 2013). This and other studies challenge the assumption that the 20% foaling rate provides an adequate measure of population growth. The BLM bases their management decisions on environmental assessments that cite inflated population estimates. As shown in this study and previous research, the BLM’s assumption of a 20% annual wild horse population growth rate is not based in science; leading to unsubstantiated population estimates with no evidence of excess wild horses. ~ ~ ~ 7 The above research verifies that there is a 20% average annual increase of wild horse foals born but only half of those survive to the age of yearling (i.e. less than reproductive age). Therefore a wild horse herd will not be physically able to increase annually more than 10%. As the report states, in addition to the 10% of herd yearling survival rate, adult mortality must be factored into the equation which would reduce the mathematical and scientific possibility of a herd escalation even further below the average 10% annual herd increase. Therefore, the public cannot be sure the BLM rigorously evaluated the available science regarding herd increase and survival or how BLM arrived at its conclusions because without citations to specific sources for the EA’s analysis, the public cannot know what information the BLM gleaned from which sources, or how BLM arrived at its often-used but erroneous population statements. The BLM’s FONSI/ROD must therefore not be signed until this grave error in the environmental assessment is corrected. Domestic Livestock For Profit of Private or Corporate Benefit BLM has purported that there is not enough forage and habitat for the horses, even though the BLM permits thousands of cattle and sheep to graze on these same public lands, despite the fact that, unlike the wild horses, the livestock are not required to be “protected” as an “integral part of the natural system of the public lands.” 16 U.S.C. § 1331. In choosing these scientifically unsound, controversial, untested, and radical approaches for the management of wild horses, the BLM has violated its obligations under the Congressional Wild Horse and Burro Act to “protect and manage” these “wild and free-roaming” horses and burros as “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West” and to ensure that “all management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level.” Id. §§ 1331, 1333(a). The BLM has also violated its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370f, by failing to adequately analyze the environmental consequences of its decision on the individual wild horses or the herds as a whole; failing to consider reasonable alternatives such as reducing the amount of livestock permitted on these lands. As made clear by the Wild Horse and Burro Act’s implementing regulations, the BLM “may close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock . . . if necessary to provide habitat for wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment or injury.” 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5(a). 8 Under the Taylor Grazing Act (“TGA”), 43 U.S.C. §§ 315-315r, the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, is “authorized” to issue permits for the grazing of livestock on public lands “upon the payment of reasonable fees.” 43 U.S.C. § 315b. The statute further provides, however, that “the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a [grazing] permit . . . shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.” The TGA further provides that the Secretary “is authorized, in his discretion, to . . . classify any lands within a grazing district, which are . . . more valuable or suitable for any other use” than grazing, including use by wild horses. I decidedly object to the proposed dramatic reduction in wild horse populations on their Congressionally designated acreage to make way for continued high and abusive levels of cattle and sheep grazing on these public lands, particularly because the BLM has not supplied the public sufficient monitoring to allow it to separate impacts and uses by horses and cattle, or to determine the resources available to horses or the ecological impacts of livestock vs. horses. Removal or reduction of domestic livestock which provides financial gain for any private or corporate owned institution must be activated in favor of protecting the land and the wildlife and wild horses and wild burros and their habitat that belong to the American people. By law the BLM can and should close appropriate areas of public lands to grazing use by all domestic livestock, if necessary, to provide habitat for wild horses or burros; to implement herd management actions; or to protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment, or injury. 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5. It is the law. Per the 1971 Congressional Wild Horse and Burro Act, the land is to be devoted PRINCIPALLY although not exclusively to the wild horses and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands. Definition of “principally”: First, highest, foremost in importance, rank, worth or degree, chief, mainly, largely, chiefly, especially, particularly, mostly, primarily, above all, predominantly, in the main, for the most part, first and foremost. Wild horses and burros are legally DESIGNATED on the Herd Management Area (HMA) and livestock are only PERMITTED. Definition of the word “designated” is to “set aside for” or “assign” or “authorize”. Definition of “permit” is to “allow” or “let” or “tolerate”. The Wild Horse and Burro lands and resources are set aside for, and assigned and authorized for, the use of wild horses and burros whereas the livestock is only allowed and tolerated and let to use the public range resources. While commercial livestock grazing is permitted on public lands, it is not a requirement under the agency’s multiple use mandate as outlined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Public land grazing clearly is a privilege not a right, while the BLM is mandated by law to protect wild horses and burros. 9 OBJECTION TO EA SECTION 4.2.2 – Authorized VS Permitted EA: “Annual authorized livestock use may be adjusted due to a number of factors, including rangeland health or drought. Managing wild horses at the AML through gather and removals with or without fertility control would help with long-term sustainability of authorized livestock use within the HMAs at the permitted levels. Managing wild horses within AML would reduce the likelihood of adjustments to current active livestock permits attributable to overuse of resources by wild horses. This action would have no direct impact on current livestock permits in terms of active AUMs, season of use and/or terms and conditions.” “Long-term sustainability” of private livestock is not goal of the Bureau of Land Management and private livestock are not “authorized” on wild horse herd areas or any public land – they are “permitted”. Use by “permitted” livestock must be adjusted due to a number of factors, including rangeland health or drought conditions. Managing by reduction of private livestock would help with both short and long-term sustainability of “authorized” wild horse use within their Herd Areas and reduction of private livestock would greatly contribute with short and long-term health of the public lands. This simple but factual reality is the answer to any overuse of the public lands and is keeping with the law. In addition, reduction of private livestock would decrease the likelihood of any capture and removal of legally designated wild horses attributable to overuse of resources and degradation of resources by private livestock. The “private domestic livestock for private/corporate profit” mentality is illegal when used in conjunction with legally designated wild horse and burro publically owned land and it must be stopped. Short or long-term sustainability and reducing “the likelihood of adjustments to current active livestock permits attributable to overuse of resources” of privately owned livestock for private profit domestic livestock management is an inappropriate and insignificant part of the BLM’s mission to protect the American public’s land and resources. BLM is not in the cattle and sheep business and is not authorized to be promoting private for-profit ranchers. The 1971 Congressional Wild Horse and Burro Act states that the land where wild horses and burros were found at the time of the passing of the Act, is to be devoted principally but not exclusively to the wild horses’ and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands. As made clear by the Wild Horse and Burro Act’s implementing regulations, the BLM “may close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock . . . if necessary to provide habitat for wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment or injury.” 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5(a). 10 Welfare Ranching As required by NEPA to bring federal action in line with Congress’ goals and to foster environmentally informed decision-making by federal agencies, NEPA “establishes ‘action-forcing’ procedures that require agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989)). Therefore, I hereby require that the following information be included in the BLM’s “hard look”. Names of credentialed experts in this field are included in the book, including but not limited to: Dr. Thomas L. Fleischner, Dr. J. Boone Kaufman, Dr. Carl E. Bock, Dr. Brian L. Horejsi, Dr. Brian J. Miller and Dr. Thomas A. Power. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm Excerpts: “The public lands of the United States are a hallmark of our democracy and harbor some of the greatest resources of our nation. Federally managed lands-owned by all Americans-total 623 million acres, or more than 25 percent of the U.S. land base. There are four major federal land agencies-the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). State agencies and other government departments oversee millions of acres of additional public land.” “The vast majority of the federal public lands are in the western United States, where they serve as sources of clean water, recreation, scenic beauty, and inspiration. The public lands are wildlife habitat and in many cases provide the only remaining suitable environments for jeopardized species. On the large blocks of acreage provided by the public lands, restoration and maintenance of landscape-scale ecological processes-such as wildfires-are feasible and desirable. Elsewhere, the prerogatives of commercial enterprise and other human needs usually dominate.” The majority of the American public does not know that livestock grazing in the arid West has caused more damage than the chainsaw and bulldozer combined. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West is a seven-pound book featuring 346 pages of articles and photographs by expert authors and photographers on the severe negative impacts of livestock grazing on western public lands. 11 “Unfortunately, resource exploitation of various kinds has driven public lands management for many decades. Mining, logging, oil and gas drilling, and even farming have occurred and continue to occur on public lands. But the most widespread commercial use of western public lands is livestock production. Nearly all public lands that have any forage potential for livestock are leased for grazing. This includes 90 percent of BLM lands, 69 percent of USFS lands, and a surprising number of wildlife refuges and national parks. This land-your public land-is frequently managed as if it were a private feedlot rather than the common heritage of all Americans.” The western rancher is dependent on what is, in essence, a welfare program. The much-publicized low fees paid by ranchers to graze federal lands are only the beginning. Other subsidies include taxpayer-supported research at western land grant universities and agricultural exemptions that lower property taxes paid by ranchers. There are handouts to help with nearly every problem: drought relief, low-interest agricultural loans, emergency livestock feed programs, emergency grazing on Conservation Reserve Program lands, to name a few. And this is not all. Ranchers are literally mortgaging the public’s resources for their private benefit. As Mark Salvo explains in his essay on the connection between the banking industry and public lands ranching, ranchers are able to take out loans based on the “value” of their grazing permits. This questionable arrangement forces government officials to consider the status of a rancher’s debt when making range management decisions, rather than focusing on what is best for the land. What can be done to address the problems associated with public lands livestock grazing? There is a simple answer: end it. Get the cows and sheep off, let the wild creatures reclaim their native habitat, and send the ranchers a bill for the cost of restoration.  Table of Contents  Introduction  Part Introductions, I – VII o Part I – This Land Is Your Land  Ranching Myths  Myth: Ranchers Are Good Stewards of the Land  Myth: Rangeland Conditions are Improving  Myth: Livestock Benefit Wildlife  Myth: Public Lands Grazing Supports the Family Rancher  Myth: Cattle Have Replaced the Bison  Myth: Rangelands Must Be Grazed to Stay Healthy  Myth: Ranching Is the Foundation of Rural Economies  Myth: It’s Either Ranching or Subdivisions  Myth: Good Livestock Production and Ecosystem Preservation Can Coexist o Part II – Cultural and Historical Roots: The Grasp of the Cowboy on Contemporary Consciousness  Land Held Hostage: A History of Livestock and Politics, Dr. Thomas L. Fleischner  An Evil in the Season: The Cattleman’s Welfare System Begins, T. H. Watkins  Pillaged Preserves: Livestock in National Parks and Wilderness Areas, Andy Kerr and Mark Salvo 12 o Part III – Looking Across the Arid West: What’s Wrong with This Picture?  Understanding Range Management, George Wuerthner o Part IV – A Century of Trashing Public Lands: Ecological Impacts of Livestock Production in Arid Western Landscapes  Lifeblood of the West: Riparian Zones, Biodiversity, and Degradation by Livestock, Dr. J. Boone Kauffman  Guzzling the West’s Water: Squandering a Public Resource at Public Expense, George Wuerthner  The Soil’s Living Surface: Biological Crusts, George Wuerthner  Comrades in Harm: Livestock and Exotic Weeds in the Intermountain West, Dr. Joy Belsky & Jonathan L. Gelbard  Birds and Bovines: Effects of Livestock Grazing on Birds in the West, Dr. Carl E. Bock  Ranching in Bear Country: Conflict and Conservation, Dr. Brian L. Horejsi  A West Without Wolves: The Livestock Industry Hamstrings Wolf Recovery, Michael J. Robinson  Prairie Dog Gone: Myth, Persecution, and Preservation of a Keystone Species, Lauren McCain, Dr. Richard P. Reading, Dr. Brian J. Miller  Where Bison Once Roamed: The Impacts of Cattle and Sheep on Native Herbivores, Bill Willers o Part V – Ranching Economics and Livestock Subsidies: The True Cost of a Hamburger  Taking Stock of Public Lands Grazing: An Economic Analysis, Dr. Thomas M. Power o Part VI – False Hopes and Counterarguments: Ways to Stay Blind to the Critical Plight of Western Ecosystems  The Donut Diet: The Too-Good-to-Be-True Claims of Holistic Management, George Wuerthner  Cows or Condos: A False Choice Between Public Lands Ranching and Sprawl, George Wuerthner  Using a Hammer to Swat Mosquitoes: Livestock as Management “Tools,” George Wuerthner o Part VII – Looking for Solutions: Restoring the West and Wildlife Additional very significant information that was withheld from the public but relevant to the EA proposal since the proposal is to remove wild horses in favor of private livestock: Iron County, Utah Summary Information  $11.4 million in subsidies 1995-2012 Beaver County, Utah Summary Information  $10.7 million in subsidies 1995-2012 http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=49000 America’s public lands belong to all Americans and must be managed for the broader interests of the American people and not for the narrow interests of a handful of local users who profit from grazing livestock on those lands, thanks to our tax-funded subsidies. I am appalled that my land is being managed as if it were a private feedlot rather than the common heritage of all Americans. 13 Additional information regarding usage of resources on our public lands: I repeat here to be sure the BLM clearly understands the law when it comes to the removals of wild horses vs removals of livestock: As made clear by the Wild Horse and Burro Act’s implementing regulations, the BLM “may close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock . . . if necessary to provide habitat for wild horses or burros, to implement herd management actions, or to protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment or injury.” 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5(a). 14 RE-ESTABLISH LEGAL WILD HORSE AREA (ORIGINAL HERD AREA ACREAGE) BLAWN WASH In addition to the 1971 Congressional Wild Horse and Burro Act (WH&BA) which states that the land where wild horses and burros were found at the time of the passing of the Act, is to be devoted principally but not exclusively to the wild horses’ and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands, the law also provides that the BLM may designate and maintain specific areas on public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation. By regulation, the BLM recognizes three types of management areas for wild horses – herd management areas (“HMAs”), herd areas, (“HAs”), and Wild Horse Territories (“WHT”). An HMA is an area “established for the maintenance of wild horse and burro herds.” 43 C.F.R. § 4710.3-1. An HA is any “geographic area identified as having been used by a [wild horse or burro] herd as its habitat in 1971” when the WH&BA was enacted. Regardless if the BLM previously decided to allow administration of a portion of the Blawn Wash Herd Area to the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), the 1971 unanimously passed Congressional Wild Horse and Burro Act gave the principal usage of that land to the Wild Horses and Burros. By law, wild horses must be allowed to remain and use the resources on their legal land. This is still federal land designated to the protection of the wild horses and burros and the land belongs to the American people, regardless of any “agreements” regarding “control” that BLM made with SITLA – the 1971 Congressional wild Horse and Burro Act prevails. It is the law. The EA has omitted and must include the alternative of reestablishing the original Blawn Wash legal wild horse area acreage (now used for private/corporate financial gain by privately owned domestic livestock ranchers and others) as per the law: Wild horses and burros are to be treated as “components of the public lands”. 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a) The law is clear that “wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death” and entitled to roam free on public lands where they were living at the time the Act was passed in 1971.” It is the law of the United States of America and any policy or regulation or memorandum of understanding or environmental assessment or Record of Decision or Finding of No Significance that BLM or other governmental agency writes or proposes or agrees to or takes action on that does not come under the umbrella of the law is therefore illegal. From available data provided within the EA, it appears that the Blawn Wash Herd Area has over 2000 AUMs now used by private “for profit” domestic livestock ranchers. This acreage and its resources are legally required to be used principally for wild horses per The 1971 Congressional Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, (Public Law 92-195), THAT CLEARLY states that the land where wild horses and burros were found at the time of the passing of the Act, is to be devoted principally but not exclusively to the wild horses’ and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands. Adding back this legal wild horse herd area land would add approximately 2058 additional animal unit months (AUMs) for the wild horses and therefore allow approximately 182 Wild Horses to be re-instated to their Legal Land. It is the law. 15 HIDING TRUTHS FROM THE PUBLIC Although the EA does list some previous wild horse captures in Utah, it does not supply the public with the highly relevant facts about wild horses captured and removed from the Bible complex. This information is relevant to the proposed capture and must be provided to the public in order for BLM to pass the requirement that a “hard look” has been accomplished before the EA is signed or activated. I refer here mainly to the nine wild horses that have been captured within the past two years off of Bible Springs HMA and the thirty-five other wild horses captured and removed from Utah but with the location not given to the public – except as “Outside HA: Utah”. Why was this recent and highly relevant data not supplied to the public and apparently swept under the rug and done behind the public’s back? These captured and removed wild horses include but are limited to: Capture Date Capture Herd Place Capture Method Signalment Key Location Name Disposition 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAA Dead 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAA (UTF88) Gunnison Training Facility Eligible for Sale-Age 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAA (WYF90) Atkinson GPF Eligible for Sale-Age 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAB (AZF80) Florence WH&B Prison Training Facility Eligible for Adoption 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAG (AZF80) Florence WH&B Prison Training Facility Eligible for Adoption 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAG (WYF90) Atkinson GPF Eligible for Adoption 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAG (WYF90) Atkinson GPF Eligible for Sale-Age 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAJ (UTF88) Gunnison Training Facility Eligible for Adoption 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAAL (NMF56) Paul’s Valley Maintenance Facility Eligible for Adoption 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAAAFB Dead 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAABAK (UTF88) Gunnison Training Facility Eligible for Adoption 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAABFB (UTF88) Gunnison Training Facility Eligible for Adoption 11/1/2012 (UT000Z) Outside HA: Utah Water Trap HF1AAACAG (WYF90) Atkinson GPF Eligible for Sale-Age 17 13 Springs Trap BB Facility Adoption 5/30/2013 (UT0440) Bible Springs Water Trap HF1AAAABF (UTF54) Delta Preparation Facility Eligible for Adoption 5/30/2013 (UT0440) Bible Springs Water Trap HF1AAABBB (UTF54) Delta Preparation Facility Eligible for Adoption 5/30/2013 (UT0440) Bible Springs Water Trap HF1AEAEHO (UTF54) Delta Preparation Facility Eligible for Sale-Age 5/30/2013 (UT0440) Bible Springs Water Trap HF1GGGGJN Adopted 5/30/2013 (UT0440) Bible Springs Water Trap HF_______ Dead 5/30/2013 (UT0440) Bible Springs Water Trap HM1AAAABF Adopted 5/30/2013 (UT0440) Bible Springs Water Trap HM1AEADBB (UTF54) Delta Preparation Facility Eligible for Adoption 5/30/2013 (UT0440) Bible Springs Water Trap HM1GGGGHN Adopted 3/6/2013 (UT0442) Chloride Canyon Water Trap HG1AAAABB (UTF88) Gunnison Training Facility Eligible for Adoption 18 Why was the information on these numerous captured wild horses not provided to the public – especially the ten that were recently captured and removed from the Bible Springs HMA? Why were these wild horses removed without public knowledge and without at least an EA or an announcement to the public? Why was this capture and removal concealed? Without the BLM being forthright and honest, the public cannot be sure the BLM rigorously evaluated the available relevant data and it certainly appears that this pertinent data is being concealed from the public. How can the public be sure the BLM took a hard look at the alternatives without specific and complete data sources for the EA’s analysis? The public cannot know what information the BLM amassed or ignored and from which sources, or how BLM arrived at its “preferred” alternative, if the agency conceals applicable data. The BLM’s FONSI/ROD must therefore not be signed until this critical error in the environmental assessment is corrected. EA CAPTURE AND REMOVAL PROPOSAL I am an American citizen and a taxpayer and I am disgusted and outraged that the BLM has caved in to bullying tactics by a small group of ranchers and is scheduling this massive roundup of wild horses from the Bible Springs Complex in Utah. America’s public lands belong to all Americans and must be managed for the broader interests of the American people and not for the narrow interests of a handful of local users who profit from grazing livestock on those lands, thanks to our tax-funded subsidies. It is unfortunate and disastrous that the BLM is not following the law and not standing firm for the interests of American taxpayers and our cherished, federally protected wild horses. The proposed Bible Springs Complex capture and removal roundup will subject wild horses including recently born foals, pregnant mares, elderly horses and debilitated animals to the terror, trauma and extreme physical exertion of a helicopter stampede conducted in summer desert heat. Worse, the agency’s plan to capture and remove 600-697 wild horses from this area is based on wildly inflated population estimates and, as a result, could decimate the Bible Springs Complex wild horse herds. These national icons — like the public lands themselves — belong to all Americans from all 50 states, not just the handful of ranchers who profit from grazing their livestock on our public rangelands with subsidies paid by all American taxpayers. 19 Errors in the BLM agency’s preferred alternative decision include and must be reevaluated in an amended EA: ► The BLM’s goal of removing 600-700 horses could literally decimate the wild horse herds in the Bible Springs Complex, because it is based on wildly inflated population estimates. Reducing the number of wild horses in these herds as proposed will undermine the genetic viability of these herds. AML for a given Herd Management Area (HMA) can be based on forage and water availability, but instead BLM bases it on forage and water allocation. Case study after case study have shown that BLM consistently allocates substantially more forage to private livestock and game animals on the very areas that were legally designated for wild horses sometimes to the point of eradication. In 1971, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency of the U.S. Department of Interior, was put in charge of implementing the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. When the Act was passed, the U.S. Senate stated: “An intensive management program of breeding, branding, and physical care would destroy the very concept that this legislation seeks to preserve…”. The 1971 Congressional Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, (Public Law 92-195), declares that the land where wild horses and burros were found at the time of the passing of the Act, is to be devoted principally but not exclusively to the wild horses’ and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands. ► The BLM’s proposal to allow just 80-170 federally-protected wild horses in this 33-square-mile public lands area, while authorizing the annual equivalent of 1,270 cows and 1,031 sheep to graze the same area is unlawful. The BLM must research and provide scientific documentation that the wild horses and not the livestock or wildlife are preventing attainment of a thriving natural ecological balance in those HMAs. Where is this scientific and independently verified documentation? Regardless what AML has previously been decided on, the 1971 Congressional Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, (Public Law 92-195), declares that the land where wild horses and burros were found at the time of the passing of the Act, is to be devoted principally but not exclusively to the wild horses’ and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands. It is the law. 20 The decision to capture and remove nearly 700 wild horses from our public lands in this area is: • Fiscally irresponsible. Recently a BLM official publicly stated that each horse removed from the range costs taxpayers $43,000 over the life of the horse. Given this, and BLM’s low adoption rates, BLM Utah is making a $30 million decision to capture and remove horses from this area. This is unfathomable in light of the available and legal alternatives to reduce private domestic livestock grazing. Private domestic livestock grazing subsidies cost taxpayers hundreds of millions annually and it has been proven that the current preferential private livestock grazing methods cost the American taxpayer significantly. According to the Government Accountability Office in 2005, the grazing fee isn’t nearly sufficient to cover the costs of managing public lands grazing, and American taxpayers subsidize the program with at least $1.23 billion every decade, not counting the additional costs of species recovery, range infrastructure, soil loss, weed infestations, increasing wildfires, and bacterial contamination of water supplies. http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/04/16/the-taxpayers-shouldnt-have-to-pay-for-grazing-either/ • Is based on erroneous, unconfirmed and invalidated population estimates. The target removal numbers are based on wildly inflated population guesstimates that are not scientifically based (see above research report: “Wild Horse Population Growth” – April 25, 2014). If the BLM proceeds to round up 600-700 horses from this area, it will do so at significant risk of leaving few, if any, horses behind. While this appears to be the goal of private ranchers in the area, it is a blatant violation of federal law. The EA supplied no valid documented herd population census – i.e. photos and videos that prove the number of horses stated are actually in existence. This inadequate and inaccurate supposition is a violation of the NEPA which requires assurance that environmental assessment statements reflect a careful consideration of the available science and that areas of uncertainty are not swept under the carpet. • Cruel and inhumane. The July roundup will occur just after foaling season, meaning that very young foals – along with elderly, and physically compromised horses surviving on limited, drought-reduced water and livestock damaged forage resources – will be subjected to the terror, trauma and physical exertion of a helicopter stampede conducted in summer desert heat. Upon capture, the tightly knit family bands will be torn apart; the animals will be robbed of their freedom and their families – the two things that are most important to a wild horse and which are illegal per the 1971 WH&B Act which states “all management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level.” Id. §§ 1331, 1333(a). To bring federal action in line with Congress’ goals and to foster environmentally informed decision-making by federal agencies, NEPA “establishes ‘action-forcing’ procedures that require agencies to take a ‘hard look’ at environmental consequences.” Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir.2000) I therefore require that the entirety of this scientific report by Dr. Bruce Nock be reviewed and analyzed with the proposed specific Bible Complex wild horse capture plan and be evaluated and included in an amended environmental assessment that includes this relevant scientific study. 21 WILD HORSES — THE STRESS OF CAPTIVITY Bruce Nock, PhD Washington University School of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and of Anatomy and Neurobiology, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA Liberated Horsemanship LiberatedHorsemanship.com Excerpt: “I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say, as gathers are routinely done in the USA, if a wild horse doesn’t die straight off from the immediate devastation and commotion, it compromises him/her physically and mentally, putting him on a path of accelerated deterioration.” http://www.liberatedhorsemanship.com/Bruces_Books_files/Wild%20Horse%20Stress.pdf Copyright © 2010 Bruce Nock, Ph.D. All rights reserved. ~ ~ ~ • Unjust – The BLM proposes to allow just 80-130 federally-protected wild horses in this 33 SQUARE MILE area, while authorizing the annual equivalent of more than 2,300 privately-owned cattle and sheep to graze the same area. The NAS concluded that the BLM’s wild horse and burro “Appropriate” Management Levels (AMLs) must be “transparent to stakeholders, supported by scientific information, or amenable to adaptation with new information and environmental and social change.” The Bible Springs Complex is a clear example of the gross inequity in resource distribution on the small amount of land that has been designated as wild horse and burro habitat. I am disgusted that my land is being managed as if it were a private feedlot rather than the common heritage of all Americans. Additionally, the EA is inadequate because it: • Fails to provide monitoring data to justify the removal of horses instead of livestock. The EA does not disclose how the BLM discerns between wild horse impacts and livestock impacts, particularly given the vastly larger number of livestock on this public lands area, and the fact that 15 of 16 livestock grazing allotments within the Complex are non-compliant with one or more rangeland health standards. Where is the science? The recent National Academy of Science (NAS) report on the Wild Horse and Burro Program determined that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) utilized management decisions that are not based in science (NAS, 2013). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires assurance that environmental assessment statements reflect a careful consideration of the available science. 22 • Fails to provide an economic analysis of the BLM’s costly decision to capture and remove nearly 700 wild horses from this area vs. the more cost-effective options of reducing livestock grazing and allowing wild horse herds to remain on their legal land where by law, the land is to be principally but not exclusively to the wild horses’ and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands. The 1971 Congressional Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, (Public Law 92-195), declares that the land where wild horses and burros were found at the time of the passing of the Act, is to be devoted principally but not exclusively to the wild horses’ and wild burros’ welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept of public lands. It is the law. • Fails to analyze the social impacts of the proposed action at a time when the vast majority of Americans support protecting wild horses on our public lands and oppose horse slaughter, while a small self-interested minority wants our public lands used for private “for profit” domestic livestock grazing. This is financial profit for the few at the expense of the many American citizens who uphold the law – especially the unanimously passed 1971 Congressional Wild Horse and Burro Act. For all the reasons above, I require that the BLM not sign the FONSI or ROD and not capture and remove any wild horses or burros and in its place amend the current environmental assessment using trustworthy science and honorable, unbiased knowledge and stand against the bullying and threats of illegal action and conspiracy and extortion by ranchers and instead take an unyielding stance with the law-abiding American public who own this land and its resources to protect our cherished wild horses and preserve the rule of law in our country. Ignoring relevant scientific data by the BLM constitutes a violation of the NEPA policy and thus without providing it to the public and decision makers, the EA will be an act of fraud against the people of the United States. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the planning decisions on our public lands and wish you to leave you with this quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson, “What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say”. The BLM is required to follow the law and listen to the American people. Sincerely, Ms. Gregg Environmental Researcher therealgrandmakathy@yahoo.com