OCR Text |
Show Commissioners Challenge GSENM On Closure Of Left Hand Collet PANGUITCH Garfield County's commissioners are objecting ob-jecting strongly to and officially protesting what they perceive as Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Manager Kate Cannon's arbitrary indefinite closure of a . grazing area on the monument. The commissioners state that they have been ignored in decisionmaking decision-making processes on the monument contrary to specific promises made by the BLM and resolutions adopted by two counties and several cities and towns. The commissioners further fur-ther claim that Cannon's decision to close Left Hand Collett was made without scientific foundation. Commissioner Clare Ramsay said the commissioners first learned of the closure as they read a notice of the decision placed by the GSENM in the Public Notice section of the Garfield County News on Dec. 14. Their letter to Cannon reads as follows: "This correspondence is in response to the Notice of Closure that appeared in the Garfield County News on the 14th of December concerning the closure of the grazing allotments in the Left Hand Collet pasture within the Last Chance Allotment. The notice stated sta-ted that the allotments would be closed for an indeterminate amount of time. "We, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, object to and protest this action. It has been our experience that drought conditions can be reversed in a short amount of time with sufficient moisture. Such moisture could come at any time, and we feel that the allotments should not be closed because of the current drought status. Instead, these allot- ! ments should be evaluated during the spring when the winter moisture mois-ture has been allowed to take its course, and a decision should be made at that point in time. The two-year period stated in the notice had no precedent, scientific backing, or other purpose than to remove cattle from grazing allotments. "Title II, Section 202 (9) of the Federal Land Planning and Manage ment Act required that federal land management agencies implement plans consistent with state and local plans to the maximum extent consistent with Federal law. The Grazing and Forage Principles Resolution, a concurrent resolution of the mayors and city councils of the gateway communities to the Monument, the Board of Commissioners Commis-sioners of both Garfield and Kane Counties, and the Garfield and Kane County Grazing Advisory Council, signed and dated the 4th day of May, 1998, includes the following provisions concerning the management manage-ment of the Monument: "BE IT FURTHER RE- ' SOLVED that any changes to management man-agement of grazing allotments on the Monu-ment be based on peer-reviewed peer-reviewed scientific management practices and that day-to-day management be based on joint determination by the permittee and appropriate BLM Resource Area personnel. "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED RE-SOLVED that the BLM must further fur-ther coordinate its management of grazing on the Monument with the grazing policy provisions with Garfield Gar-field and Kane County General Plan before any action is taken. Differences Differ-ences or disputes regarding actions between the BLM and the County General Plan shall be mutually resolved re-solved before implementation of the federal action or plan. "We feel that once again, we have been excluded from the decision-making process that has a direct effect on our County. We were not notified of this decision by a direct letter, phone call, or other announcement to us by the Monument Monu-ment Management. The small no- (See COMMISSION on page 3-A) COMMISSION From Front Page tice in the Garfield County News is not sufficient notice to local governments gov-ernments with which you should have concurred and consulted before implementation of this management manage-ment decision. "We have tried to be reasonable in the past with the Monument management. We have been assured as-sured a "no surprises" policy time after time and meeting after meeting. meet-ing. It is apparent that this policy is just to appease us, and has no actual value. A resolution by two county governments, various cities and towns, and a two-county grazing advisory board has been ignored. We were not consulted or advised about a significant change in the management of the Monument. Monu-ment. The actual decision has no scientific merits, and is a poor decision. We specifically pose you the following questions: (1) Upon whose advisement did the Monument close the allotment indefinitely? (2) What scientific basis was used in the rationale of a two-year or indefinite closure of the allotment? (3) Which county officials were notified of the management decision? If none, why? (4) Did the permittee have any input on the management decision? (5) What did the recent Grazing Environmental Assessment reveal about this particular allotment? (6) Is there any precedent for such an action? "We look forward to a response to this protest. Clare M. Ramsay D. Maloy Dodds Garfield County Commissioners" , |