URGENT ACTION!

Picture
Posterboard from the BLM Public Meetings held in March 2020 in Rawlins and Rock Springs.

​Effective Comments:​
-Question with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EIS.
-Present new information relevant to the analysis.
-Present reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed in the EIS.
-Cause revisions in one or more of the alternatives.
Don't:
-Comment in favor of or against the proposed actions or alternatives without including reasoning that meets the criteria listed above. 
-Only agree or disagree with BLM policy or resource decisions without including justification or supporting data.
-Comment on issues that are not pertinent to the project or project area.
-Be vague or ask open-ended questions.
Comment on the Draft RMP/EIS for the Rock Springs and Rawlins Field Offices. Affected HMAs include Salt Wells, Adobe Town, White Mountain and Divide Basin.
The RMP/EIS process is as follows:
  1. Notice of intent/public scoping
  2. Alternative development and Environmental Analysis (EA)
  3. Release of Draft EIS and Public Comment Period - CURRENT STEP
  4. Respond to comments and prepare final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
  5. Release Final EIS
  6. ​Record of Decision
Talking points: things to consider when you are reading the proposal and commenting.
  • Salt Wells, Adobe Town, Divide Basin, and White Mountain contain some of the best genetically sound, visually diverse and desirable, highly adoptable and trainable horses. Describe how you would personally be affected if the herd were zeroed out or reduced. Will it affect you as a tourist/photographer/adopter? Do you have any data regarding loss of genetics that is not addressed in the proposal?
  • Where is the data regarding how AML is determined? See Chapter 3.1 for information to help comment and question with reasonable basis the accuracy of AML.
  • Has current socioecomonic data been considered? How will the alternatives affect tourism to the area? Chapter 3.11 addresses horse viewing but how inclusive is it to current popular herd following?
  • Why have these HMAs not been managed at AML? Where will horses gathered and removed go? Does the EIS address the current holding situation adequately? 
  • Much of the checkerboard lands have necessary resources for wild horses and wildlife on the private sections. See Appendix A for infomation. 
  • Working with Non-Government Orgs is not mentioned anywhere in the proposal. What NGOs (HINT- WYWHIP) are in the area with qualified, knowledgeable and local volunteers and poised to offer volunteer assistance per the BLM needs and direction? 
  • Search for statistics and studies regarding grazing and range forages, usage by wildlife, cattle, sheep, and horses for the HMAs. Are there science based studies included in the proposal? Where are they if so?
  • Is there an alternative that would gather to low AML, in each HMA and utilize fertility control within limits that would be fiscally feasible to keep AML between low and mid-ranges, or close to high AML? Cite studies that are out there and publicly available regarding the various fertility control. BLM estimates that herds grow conservatively by 20% each year. 
  • What is the reason gathers have not been done according to the Consent Decree? 
Proudly powered by Weebly