Adobe Town & Salt Wells Wild Horse Removal 2010 – UPDATED

In light of new information received today, I pulled this post earlier until said information could be researched and verified. Now I am re-posting the original information along with this new information with a word of caution…

The Adobe Town / Salt Wells HMA Gather is a very unique situation. Some of you may already know the history, but for those who don’t, allow me to explain. And please remember, this is for informational purposes only, but I do ask each of you to consider your opinions of this gather very carefully before proceeding with comments and petitions.

In 1979, the Rock Springs Grazing Association (RSGA) entered into an agreement with the BLM. In accordance with the 1971 WFRH&BAct, BLM is required to maintain the multiple use purposes of public lands. If BLM kept up their end of this deal efficiently and effectively, in return the RSGA would allow the wild horses to roam and graze on privately owned lands. This is the reasoning behind the “checkerboard pattern” of these HMAs. Not all of the 1.5+ million acres that these horses use are “public lands”.

The spirit of this agreement is to ensure that the lands are used for their intended multiple use purposes as set for by the 1971 WFRH&BAct. There should not be a domination of any one species on the lands; rather there should be a cohabitation and cooperation amongst the varied species.

In 1981, the RSGA sued the BLM, citing violations by the BLM of the 1971 WFRH&BAct, and they won. (Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Andrus No. C79-275K (D. Wyo. April 21, 1981)) 

FINDS The BLM has not removed a significant number of horses from the area from January 1, 1972, through September 1, 1976. Such inaction is clearly contrary to the Act and to Congressional mandate, and as such is unacceptable to this Court.

The court rules that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act by failing to control the number of wild horses in BLM’s Rock Springs District. A dramatic increase in the wild horse population in the district has placed excess demand on grazing lands which upsets the ecological balance in violation of the Act. Since BLM had not removed a significant number of horses from the area between 1972 and 1976, the court orders BLM to remove all excess horses.

 

As a result:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by and on behalf of plaintiffs be and the same is hereby granted; it is

 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Rock Springs District office of the Bureau of Land Management shall within one year from the date of this Order remove all wild horses from the checkerboard grazing lands in the Rock Springs District except that number which the Rock Springs Grazing Association voluntarily agrees to leave in said area; it is

 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Rock Springs District office of the Bureau of Land Management shall within two years of the date of this Order remove all excess horses from within the Rock Springs District; it is

 

FURTHER ORDERED that excess as defined in this Order and the Act means that the wild horse population exceeds the number deemed appropriate by a final environmental statement. In the absence of such a statement excess means that the number of horses exceeds the number present in the same area at the time the Act was passed; it is

 

FURTHER ORDERED that each party is to bear their own costs. Dated this 13th day of March, 1981.

 

BLM complied with the court’s rulings, and the excess horses were removed until the populations were at AML.

Basically what this all boils down to is this: Without the agreement between the RSGA and the BLM, these horses would no longer have an HMA because of the checkerboard pattern – one acre here owned privately, the next acre there being public, and so on and so forth. These herds would be zeroed out because there would not be conjoined sufficient acreage to maintain them.

The cautioning part of this information is also pretty simple. If the RSGA decides that they do not want to continue this agreement any longer – for reasons that do not legally have to be explained because of the private ownership of the lands – then they may choose to terminate said agreement and thereby rid themselves of any further conflict resulting from the wild horses’ presence.

This of course would be a horrible situation for the wild horses in this area because the BLM would have no choice in the matter but to zero out these HMAs.

I think that this situation is one that we could all learn a great deal from. The RSGA is in fact a Grazing Association. And yet, they have found a way to cooperate and cohabitate with the wild horses. They hold the BLM to the letter of the law, and they have the backing and organization to do it effectively. They don’t want the horses to be totally eradicated from the lands. They want the multiple use purposes of the laws to be upheld. They want the ranges to remain healthy and balanced so that they can sustain life of all forms, not just their own interests.

Additionally, in August, the 2003 Consent Decree was signed by the Attorney General for the State of Wyoming, and the Assistant Attorney General, Environmental & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice regarding reducing wild horse populations in Wyoming to the AML. This out-of-court settlement was executed through the U.S. District Court. Terms of Agreement to be completed to maintain compliance with Wyoming Consent Decree include:

1. If BLM determines through its inventory and projected reproduction rates that the wild horse population are likely to exceed AML in the following Fiscal Year, the BLM shall request funds to reduce the population to AML by December 15 the next budget cycle year.
2. If the BLM fails to reduce the number of wild horses to AML by the required date, the State may petition the court to compel the BLM to do so.

Case in point: In 2007, the White Mountain HMA and Little Colorado HMA had 725 excess horses.  Earlier in 2007, the BLM had sent a letter to the WY Governor indicating that the BLM preferred to delay WY gathers until next summer because of drought / wildfire emergency gathers that needed to be completed in Nevada.  The WY Attorney General sent a letter stating that they would ask the court to enforce the Consent Decree unless mutual agreement was reached within 30 days. And the result of this is:

The White Mountain & Little Colorado HMAs Gather of November 2007

• Cover Letter – 1pg, 378kb
• Decision Record – 25pgs, 1.1mb 
• Scoping Letter – 2pgs, 764kb
• Environmental Assessment – 65pgs, 800kb
• Scoping Statement – 3pgs, 1.26mb

To summarize, if they so choose, the State of Wyoming can force the BLM to conduct gathers according to the AMLs set for each HMA should that HMA’s AML be on the high end or above said AML.

This is not to say that the State of Wyoming would rather not have wild horses on its public or private lands, rather that the State of Wyoming would like to have healthy lands with a balanced ecosystem. They as well support the multiple use purposes of the 1971 WFRH&BAct.

I do not put forth any of these statements lightly. I do not endorse any one particular entity, nor do I speak on their behalf. I only speak as to what I see at this point in time and what I see is this: There is a better way. And though it may have its flaws, the 2003 Consent Decree and the agreement between BLM and RSGA seem to be at least heading in the right direction. Rather than combating the BLM and the gather itself, I suggest we look further and deeper into this situation and regard it as a very unique learning opportunity that may not come our way again.

T.

The following are other sources of information related to this situation:

• BLM Rock Springs and Rawlins Offices Requesting Public Input on Plans to Gather Excess Wild Horses 
• Adobe Town & Salt Wells Scoping Letter February 19, 2010 
• Adobe Town & Salt Wells Creek Wild Horse Removal 2010    
• Adobe Town & Salt Wells Wild Horse HMAs Map
• Rawlins Field Office NEPA Documents
• Rawlins RMP
• Rawlins RMP 2008 Appendix 12 – Managing Wild Horses

 

• Great Divide Resource Management Plan Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming
• 1990 Wild Horse HMA Great Divide RMP
• 1994 Wild Horse HMA Great Divide RMP
• 1999 Wild Horse HMA Great Divide RMP
• 1999 Wild Horse HMA Great Divide RMP – Revision
• Green River RMP
• State of Wyoming NEPA Documents
• Snake /Salt River Basin Plan Final Report, Wyoming Water Basin Planning Program, Wyoming Water Development Commission
• State, Feds Reach Wild Horse Pact By Bill Luckett and Ted Monoson, Casper Star-Tribune staff writers, Thursday, August 14, 2003
• Desert Dust, One of the Most Famous Wild Horses of the Century, from Adobe Town HMA

Rock Springs Field Office

 280 Highway 191 North

Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901

Rock_Springs_WYMail@blm.gov

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/rfodocs/at-sw2010.html

 

Excerpt from the ROD and Approved Rawlins RMP Appendix 12

Page 3:Land use plans and the decisions that they generate are dynamic, adjusting in response to changing environmental conditions or new information. With respect to horses in Wyoming, this has resulted in the 16 HMAs currently recognized in Wyoming. These 16 areas consist of 3,664,002 acres of public land, 154,737 acres of land owned by the State of Wyoming, and 846,243 acres of privately owned lands. The 16 areas still vary in size and land ownership, although not to the extent that they once did. Particularly worthy of note is the significant amount of private land now included within designated HMAs. Much of the private acreage consists of land owned or controlled by the Rock Springs Grazing Association of southwestern Wyoming. It has made its lands available to an agreed-on number of wild horses since 1979. Without access to those lands, approximately 1.5 million acres of adjoining and commingled public lands would be unavailable for inclusion in HMAs. This would, in effect, eliminate one-third of the free-roaming horses in Wyoming. The current, combined population objective (AML) for wild, free-roaming horses in Wyoming is 3,263, which is 18 percent more than it was in 1980. Without the access to the private lands noted above, the combined AML would be only 2,038.As noted above, an effective breeding population of 100 horses is necessary for maintaining a genetically viable herd of wild horses. In Wyoming, 9 of the 16 HMAs do not have AMLs that would indicate genetically stable long-term populations. However, wild horse herds in these HMAs are usually part of a larger metapopulation in adjacent HMAs. The metapopulation is the entire gene pool available to a specific herd.Page 5:In the 30 years since the Act was passed, the following has occurred in the State of Wyoming:

• The average herd size has increased from 147 to 197.
• The area of public land available for use by horses has increased slightly since 1980.
• The area of private land occupied has decreased from 2.5 million to 846,243 acres.
• The area of private land available for legal use has increased from 0 to 846,243 acres.
• Of the 16 herds, 14 are parts of metapopulations greater than 300.

The same trends that are described for the State of Wyoming also occurred in the RMPPA. In 1971, an estimated 435 horses subject to management under the Act occupied 2,116,095 acres in six areas. Today, an estimated 1,540 horses subject to management under the Act occupy approximately 929,000 acres in three areas.

It should be noted that the BLM has routinely removed excess and stray horses from the range since 1978. During that period, more than 27,000 horses have been removed from Wyoming rangelands and placed through the BLM’s Adopt-a-Horse-or-Burro program; yet the population still exceeds 6,000 animals. This is an important indicator that BLM’s management of the horses does not imperil the cornerstone principle of the Act—a thriving ecological balance.