| OCR Text |
Show Counties Say Facts Don't Confirm BLM Assurances Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Manager Dave Hunsaker recently released a news statement stating, stat-ing, "I wish to say for the record that it is not my intention, nor the intention of the BLM, to eliminate livestock grazing from the Monument". The record,' however, refutes that statement. In 1998 the monument staff eliminated 5,230 AUMs from eight allotments and reduced 1,377 AUMs from three allotments allot-ments (AUMs roughly equate to one cow and calf, per month, during a grazing season). Another 418 AUMs were lost to "grassbanks" that are designated for emergency use but have not been used for that purpose. Range improvements and livestock live-stock management facilities were permanently removed from the allotments. As a result of BLM action 5,230 AUMs were permanently lost to our local economy and to the livestock live-stock industry. The record also shows that Environmental Assessment (EA) documents, as approved by Hunsaker in 2002, intended to eliminate grazing on four more allotments removing an additional 4,952 AUMS from the monument. Hunsaker may say that he and the BLM do not intend to eliminate elimi-nate grazing but the record confirms con-firms that between the 1998 eliminations and his 2002 elimination elimi-nation recommendations 10,182 AUMs would have been the total eliminated in Kane and Garfield Counties. These grazing graz-ing losses were due to a Grand ' Canyon TrustConservation FundBLM collaborated buyout, relinquish, permanent elimination elimina-tion grazing scheme. These losses are in addition to at least two more allotments "secured" by Bill Hedden, of the Grand Canyon Trust, and controversial BLM administrative grazing closures. Hunsaker also stated, "At this time, the BLM does not have any requests from any permittees permit-tees to relinquish any of the AUMs". He claims that "proposed "pro-posed relinquishments" initiated the EA actions but that they were "withdrawn". It is important impor-tant that the relinquishments are now claimed to be only "proposed" "pro-posed" and "withdrawn". Voluntary relinquishments are based on a BLM handbook, not law or regulation. If a permit per-mit is relinquished to the BLM the grazing preference, by law, goes to the most viable rancher, not a preservation organization. The Trust's web site states, "the Trust also assures that after the privileges are relinquished the BLM will amend its resource management plans to cancel the subject grazing permits" per-mits" and "we only do this where the resource professionals profession-als within the agencies themselves them-selves consider grazing inappropriate". inappro-priate". Hedden's web site describes Hunsaker's actions supporting the elimination of grazing. The collaborated effort was successful success-ful in 1998 and was supposed to be routine this time. Instead, the current eliminations were challenged chal-lenged by the counties and grazing graz-ing associations. The Federal Register Notice and other documentation clearly documents that the permits were "relinquished", not "proposed for relinquishment". Only since the counties submitted the issue that continued grazing would result in the allotment going to valid ranchers, not the Trust, did the relinquishment become "proposed" and "withdrawn", rather than "relinquished". Hedden did not buy grazing preferences or allotments. He paid for relinquishments and permanent elimination commitment. commit-ment. Hedden now claims to operate oper-ate the Canyonlands Grazing Corporation, not for grazing purposes, but in order to eliminate elimi-nate grazing by transferring the permit through a shell corporation. corpora-tion. The monument staff is reportedly going to issue Hedden a federal grazing permit knowing his purposes are the elimination of grazing. The "proposed relinquishment" and relinquishment "withdrawals" are believed to be an effort to prevent the grazing preferences from going to a valid rancher. The record indicates that Hedden is trying to gain control of the allotments in the event the counties and ranchers are successful suc-cessful in their challenge to preserve pre-serve grazing. In fact, Hunsaker's statement, "If relinquishments relin-quishments are not offered, there will be no action necessary" neces-sary" confirms that strategy. Hedden invested $1.5 million in allotment buyouts with a BLM "commitment" assuring grazing elimination. If grazing is preserved pre-served and the allotments go back to ranchers, Hedden will lose his investors' money thus the effort to protect Hedden's investment. The problem is that these "commitments" were made prior to required public participation and before any agency decision -was supposed to be made. Perhaps Hunsaker would consider inviting Hedden to publicly share in explaining their reasoning, actions and relationships rela-tionships in this grazing elimination elimi-nation scheme. Hunsaker stated that the protest coordinator provided the protesters "a detailed discussion of their issues". In reality, the counties and grazing associations associa-tions were provided a three page dismissal of extensive documentation docu-mentation regarding legal and planning issues. Hunsaker stated, "we will then place the relinquished allotment in a non-use status". That is a BLM decision. Even if Hedden fills out grazing forms requesting non-use, with or without standing, Hunsaker can either retain or eliminate grazing graz-ing but he should not tell us that he supports grazing while he continues to remove grazing from the monument. Hunsaker stated that information informa-tion in newspapers was "misrepresented" "misrep-resented" from an alternative as final decision language. Our earlier press release was very clear in referring to the original Clark Bench EA that referred to the "permanent" elimination as well as other signed documents confirming "permanent" elimination. elimi-nation. That documentation was provided with the press release. Hunsaker's intent was clearly clear-ly the "permanent" elimination of grazing. The Record of Decision modified that because of county challenge and because of an agency legal opinion that permanent elimination was beyond the authority of the BLM. It was not because Hunsaker and Hedden did not intend to "permanently" eliminate elimi-nate grazing. Hunsaker stated, "the EAs were prepared by professionals "including Range Specialists". However, internal BLM memos and documents indicate that the range staff had little or no involvement, that BLM's actions were not in NEPA compliance com-pliance and that EA analysis was flawed. Numerous BLM and other resource federal employees have expressed disagreement dis-agreement with these EAs. Hunsaker states, "It will take all of us working together to resolve our issues and to chart our course for the long term". Kane and Garfield Counties have requested early planning participation and recognition of local economic and cultural needs but, instead, our needs and comments are ignored and minimized. Interior Secretary Norton's policy of conservation through communication, cooperation coop-eration and consultation although promised is missing. miss-ing. Hunsaker concluded, "Contrary to assertions contending contend-ing that BLM seeks to eliminate grazing from the Monument, there is no intention by BLM to do so". The record, however, begs the axiom: "Believe what a person does, not what he says". As Kane and Garfield County commissioners, we believe that the elimination of grazing on the monument is being reviewed due to the efforts of the county commissions, the Utah Cattlemen's Association, the Canyon Country Ranchers Association and an honest BLM attorney rather than Hunsaker's or Hedden's interest in continued contin-ued grazing. The record simply does not square with Hunsaker's assurances. assur-ances. Contact persons: Mark Habbeshaw, ' Commissioner, Kane County 435 644-3158 Clare Ramsay, Commissioner, Garfield County 435 676-8826 |
