07-27-10 Elko Daily Free Press

El Paso pact angers ranchers

ELKO - Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said Monday ranchers are angry about El Paso Corp.'s $20 million agreement with two environmental organizations that will push for retirement of grazing rights.

"The livestock industry is about as upset about this issue as it has been for a long time. We're going to fight it tooth and nail," said Rhoads, who chairs the Nevada Legislative Committee on Public Lands, is past chairman of the Public Lands Council and is an Elko County rancher.

He asked El Paso Corp. to make a presentation at the legislative panel's meeting Friday in Ely on the agreement that sets up conservation funds for Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association in exchange for the two organizations dropping protests against the planned Ruby Pipeline.

Rhoads also said El Paso representatives agreed to meet with the National Cattlemen's Association-affiliated Public Lands Council Friday in Denver to talk about the agreement.

The Ely meeting begins at 8:30 a.m. Friday at the Bristlecone Convention Center and is the final meeting of the 2009-2010 interim legislative committee.

"We've been requested to appear, and we will. We will make our case and explain our position," Houston-based El Paso spokesman Richard Wheatley said Monday. "We're talking to numerous parties and explaining our position."

Rhoads said there would be major impact to small communities if ranchers sold grazing permits, and the government could retire those permits.

"Hopefully, my committee will take some action, perhaps a letter to the congressional delegation asking them not to support such a concept," he said.

Rhoads also said he wouldn't have agreed the pipeline could go through the Rhoads Ranch if he had known El Paso would enter into an agreement with the two environmental groups that threatens grazing.

The public lands panel also will hear from the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, the Western Legacy Alliance and others on the threat to grazing permits.

"The committee wants an explanation from El Paso as to why the corporation made an agreement with the Western Watersheds Project, an organization whose stated goal is to eliminate grazing on public lands, and why local residents and the livestock industry were not consulted," Rhoads said in a statement on the meeting.

The spark point for ranchers was a statement from the two environmental organizations that the trust funds would be used to buy grazing permits from willing sellers and retire the permits, if Congress passes a bill that would allow it.

Under present law, if a ranch doesn't use a grazing permit for two years, the ranch loses the permit, but grazing permits can't be retired, so another ranch could pick up the permit.

Rhoads said a House subcommittee just last week killed wording in the Interior appropriations bill that would have allowed federal agencies to let grazing permits sit vacant.

A news release from Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, states that he successfully defended grazing on public lands in an amendment to strike the language that would allow voluntary buyouts. The vote was 13 to 1 in the subcommittee.

"Creating a federal buyout program is a dangerous step toward ending grazing on public lands, which would have a devastating impact on local economics throughout the West and would have unintended consequences on the environment," Simpson said.

Tamara Young-Allen, a spokeswoman for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said Monday FERC has received letters from both Western Watersheds and the Oregon group withdrawing their requests for a rehearing of FERC's project approval and retracting comments.

The two organizations and the Sierra Club filed a request for rehearing in the spring, and FERC issued a tolling order on June 5 giving commissioners additional time to review the request, but two other organizations didn't withdraw their request.

"It's still pending," Young-Allen said.

David von Seggren, chairman of the Ruby Pipeline Task Force for the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said Monday the Sierra Club's request is still active, as is the Defenders of Wildlife request.

"It's still open, yes, but I assume when they give Ruby the go-ahead, they will at the same time deny our petition," von Seggren said.

He also said the Sierra Club hasn't pursued any deal with El Paso, although the club met with Ruby representatives on July 12.

"They didn't make a similar offer to us," von Seggren said.

Western Watersheds Project Executive Director Jon Marvel said last week that El Paso's agreement is unique.

"It's unprecedented to have the support of industry to work for the retirement of public grazing permits," he said.

The two conservation funds El Paso is forming with $20 million over 10 years will be administered by three-member boards. Each includes a representative of El Paso, a representative of the conservation organization and a third party.

The Sierra Club doesn't oppose the $3 billion Ruby Pipeline, but the club opposes the approved route.

"The route is the main thing to us. We prefer them to change the route. We're not seeking a buy-off," von Seggren said.

Great Basin Resource Watch and the Sierra Club issued a joint statement Monday opposing the chosen route and stating that the project should follow existing disturbed corridors used for roads, utilities and railroads.

"Their route is going through pristine country in Nevada," von Seggren said.

Great Basin Resource Watch Executive Director John Hadder said Monday the chosen route "is not the best thing for Nevada's environment, cultural heritage or jobs."

He said in the statement that "FERC has moved aggressively on this project, running roughshod over our premiere environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires a complete and 'hard look' at the impacts of a project and possible alternative routes."

FERC approved the 680-mile project earlier this year, but El Paso still needs a final order to proceed from FERC. The project to bring natural gas from Wyoming to Oregon also required U.S. Bureau of Land Management approval for rights of way, and the BLM issued its approval on July 12.

The green light also requires memorandums of agreement from historic preservation offices in the four states where the pipeline will go - Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Oregon. Wheatley said Monday the draft agreements are pending review and final approval from FERC.

The pipeline will go through Elko County, and stacks of pipe for the project are visible at the Northeastern Nevada Railport at Osino until El Paso can begin the project, which Wheatley said new figures show it will bring in more than $7.5 million in ad valorem taxes to Elko County alone.