Uintah County is opposing a $20 million so-called “secret agreement” between energy company El Paso Corp. and two conservation groups.

“There’s nothing secret about it, it’s an agreement between two private parties,” said Jon Marvel, executive director of Western Watersheds Project conservation group.

The other group, the Oregon Natural Desert Association, is aligned with Marvel’s group in the effort to preserve wildlife habitat along the pipeline corridor.

Marvel told the Vernal Express that the partnership evolved from El Paso’s 680-mile Ruby Pipeline Project, which will develop a natural gas delivery pipeline from Wyoming to Oregon.

Uintah County has joined with a dozen counties from Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Oregon in opposition to the conservation agreement. The group calls themselves the Multi-County Pipeline Coalition and commissioners question the wisdom of paying-off conservation groups in order to do business on federal lands.

“We oppose the precedent of paying private groups not to sue,” said Uintah County Commissioner Mike McKee, “not the pipeline itself.”

Still, it’s odd to find the county in opposition to an energy pipeline. The question of how the money will used is setting the stage for conflict.

“The money will be used by the Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund to mitigate the negative effects of construction on 14,000 acres of federal land,” said Marvel.

But, county commissioners allege that the agreement is really a concerted effort to eliminate livestock grazing on public lands.

At issue is the voluntary relinquishment of grazing permits by stockmen to develop wildlife conservation easements in the path of the pipeline.

“It’s not a buyout to get rid of grazing on public land, but, if it was — it wouldn’t be a bad thing,” Marvel said.

His comments quickly raise the ire of stockmen who use public lands.

Opponents of the agreement, who met in Salt Lake City on Aug. 9, dispute Marvel’s comments, saying the agreement presents a bad precedent.

“We’re against converting livestock grazing units to wildlife (conservation easements),” said McKee.

McKee said the Ruby Pipeline will not cross this part of northern Utah, but even so, local ranchers and officials are opposed to El Paso’s actions.

“Its’ a violation of the Taylor Grazing Act and state law,”said J.C. Brewer, Uintah County Public Lands Committee chairman. “It’s been done in the Book Cliffs and we’ve been fighting it ever since.”

Under the Taylor Grazing Act, livestock owners pay permit fees for use of grazing areas on public lands to the Interior Department. Part of those fees are applied to wildlife conservation.

Utah State law disallows “the relinquishment or retirement of grazing animal unit months (AUM) in favor of conservation, wildlife and other uses.”

It means that a permit holder cannot sell a livestock AUM as a wildlife easement.

The law was passed in 2005 after the Elk Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, the State of Utah and the Bureau of Land Management acquired a handful of privately owned ranches in the Book Cliffs with the express purpose of upgrading wildlife habitat.

“None of the Ruby Pipeline conservation agreement money is specifically set aside to purchase AUMs,” said Marvel.

He added that some ranchers turned over unused grazing land to conservation easements, but the money from the agreement represents a 10-year commitment to the non-profit Sagebrush Fund to develop critical wildlife habitat.

“The $20 million settlement establishes a trust along with an advisory board to protect the environment,” Richard Wheatley, spokesman for El Paso Corp., told the Vernal Express.

Wheatley said the board will bring together cattlemen, ranchers, elected officials from the counties and environmental conservationists to help with decisions on fund disbursements.

He admitted the firestorm of opposition is stunning to El Paso, which crafted the agreement with all good intentions.

“This was done on top of the requirements of the environmental impact statement,”he said.

El Paso has also reached a tentative $15 million agreement with the Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in the effort to pacify local concerns.

“While the details of the agreement are still being finalized, it establishes a significant endowment with the mission to protect, enhance and preserve the public lands grazing industry,” wrote Wheatley.

The impact to counties and states, said Wheatley, will be financially significant should the Ruby Pipeline be stopped completely.

“This is a $3 billion project with plans to hire as many as 5,000 construction workers and a potential payroll of $3 to $4 million a day,” he said. “In the first 10 years of service, the pipeline has the potential to pay roughly $280 million in property taxes.”

El Paso, according to the spokesperson, “was not trying to inflame the Western livestock and ranching community,” but environmental benefits of these agreements are far-reaching.

On Aug. 2, seven Republican U.S. senators from Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and Neveada signed a request to El Paso, seeking a copy of the agreement.

A vote Monday by the Uintah County Commission unanimously supported the resolution to reject the El Paso agreement.

In a related move, the commissioners voted to appoint Mike McKee to the Multi-County Pipeline Coalition.

—mbernard@vernal.com