Case 2:16-cv-00246-NDF Document 22-7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT D

Case 2:16-cv-00246-NDF Document 22-7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 4

Meyer Glitzenstein & Eubanks LLP 4115 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 210 Washington, D.C. 20016 Telephone (202) 588-5206 Fax (202) 588-5049 [email protected]

245 Cajetan Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone (970) 703-6060 Fax (202) 588-5049 [email protected]

September 29, 2016 VIA E-MAIL Kimberlee Foster BLM Rock Springs Field Manager [email protected] Dennis Carpenter BLM Rawlins Field Manager [email protected] Coby Howell U.S. Department of Justice, ENRD [email protected] Jason Hill U.S. Department of Justice, ENRD [email protected] Thekla Hansen-Young U.S. Department of Justice, ENRD [email protected] Re:

Formal Demand For BLM To Temporarily Postpone Implementation Of The 2016 Wyoming Checkerboard Removal Decision Record (DOI-BLM-WY D040-2016-0135-EA) Until The U.S. Court Of Appeals For the Tenth Circuit Issues Its Ruling In Case No. 15-8033

Dear Kimberlee, Dennis, and your counsel: On behalf our clients—the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, The Cloud Foundation, Return to Freedom, Carol Walker, and Kimerlee Curyl—we hereby formally demand and request that the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) temporarily postpone implementation of the agency’s September 16, 2016 Decision Record that authorizes removal of wild horses from the public and private lands of the Wyoming Checkerboard in the Adobe Town, Salt Wells Creek, and Great Divide Basin Herd Management Areas (“HMA”). For the reasons explained below, it would be an ill-advised and unreasonable use of BLM’s scarce resources to contract for a helicopter roundup and permanent removal of hundreds of federally protected wild

Case 2:16-cv-00246-NDF Document 22-7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 4

horses when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is currently considering the legality of such activities. Accordingly, in order to provide sufficient time for the Tenth Circuit to issue a ruling that will have a dispositive effect as to whether BLM may ultimately implement the 2016 Checkerboard Removal, our clients request a response from BLM by no later than Monday, October 3 at 9:00am mountain time as to whether BLM is willing to temporarily postpone implementation of this Decision Record pending a ruling from that Court. If we do not receive a response by then, or if BLM is unwilling to postpone its actions until the Tenth Circuit can resolve the question of BLM’s legal authority to act in this manner, our clients will have no choice but to challenge BLM’s Decision Record in federal court and to seek emergency injunctive relief. DISCUSSION As you know, in 2014 BLM for the first time in agency history authorized the permanent removal of federally protected wild horses from public portions of HMAs specifically allocated to wild horse use and management pursuant only to BLM’s limited authority in Section 4 of the Wild Horse Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1334, which by its plain terms applies only to private lands. In that decision, BLM admittedly did not comply with Section 3 of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1333, which expressly prohibits BLM from removing a single wild horse from any public lands without first satisfying several legal prerequisites. In addition, BLM disregarded the governing resource management plans (“RMP”)—and the binding wild horse appropriate management levels (“AML”) found therein—which had been developed through an extensive, formal process as required by the Federal Land and Policy Management Act (“FLPMA”). Our clients challenged BLM’s 2014 Decision Record in federal court, focusing primarily on an important issue of first impression in the Tenth Circuit: whether Congress authorized BLM to permanently remove wild horses from public land using its limited Section 4 authority pertaining only to private land, and in the process whether BLM may ignore clear-cut statutory dictates that do apply to public lands under Section 3 of the Wild Horse Act and FLPMA. That issue is currently on appeal to the Tenth Circuit and has been fully briefed and argued, and the Tenth Circuit will likely rule on these issues in the near future. Importantly, that ruling will have a dispositive effect not only on the legality of BLM’s 2014 actions in removing wild horses from the public and private lands of the Checkerboard, but also on BLM’s future attempts to remove wild horses from the public lands of the Wyoming Checkerboard. In other words, the Tenth Circuit ruling on this critical legal question will either determine that Congress authorized BLM to remove wild horses from public lands under Section 4 (in which case BLM may rely on that authority where appropriate in the future), or the ruling will determine that Congress did not authorize BLM to remove wild horses from public lands under Section 4 (in which case BLM is foreclosed from removing any wild horses from public lands without first complying with Section 3 and FLPMA, regardless of whether private lands may also be separately involved). Notwithstanding an imminent ruling from the Tenth Circuit that directly bears upon whether BLM may ever lawfully remove wild horses from public lands pursuant to Section 4 of the Wild Horse Act and in disregard for AMLs established under FLPMA, BLM recently issued 2

Case 2:16-cv-00246-NDF Document 22-7 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 4

the 2016 Wyoming Checkerboard Removal Decision Record and indicated that the agency anticipates implementing this decision as soon as October 16, 2016. However, given the importance of the Tenth Circuit’s forthcoming ruling in determining the legality of the approach that BLM again intends to implement in less than three weeks in the Wyoming Checkerboard, it would be imprudent and inappropriate for BLM to expend large sums of taxpayer dollars—and to take actions to the extreme detriment of federally protected wild horses—for an action whose legality will soon be determined by a federal appellate court. Due to the legal uncertainty surrounding BLM’s new approach to managing wild horses found in the Wyoming Checkerboard, it would benefit all stakeholders involved for BLM to voluntarily agree to a temporary postponement of these activities until the Tenth Circuit can issue its decision. CONCLUSION In light of the urgency of these concerns, we request a response from BLM by no later than Monday, October 3 at 9:00am mountain time as to whether BLM is willing to temporarily postpone implementation of this Decision Record in order to provide sufficient time for the Tenth Circuit to resolve the pending appeal concerning a functionally identical BLM decision premised on the same legal authority. Again, should BLM not be amenable to our very modest request to temporarily postpone implementation of this action, our clients will have no choice but to file litigation to protect the wild horses that Congress charged BLM with preserving on the public lands. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you.

Respectfully,

William S. Eubanks II

_/s/ William N. Lawton William N. Lawton

3