Contacts:

David von Seggern, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , 775-787-1865 Chair, Ruby Pipeline Task Force, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club
John Hadder, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , 775-348-1986 Director, Great Basin Resource Watch

BLM only gives partial OK to Gas Pipeline Route

Reno, Nevada – Despite the rush by El Paso Pipeline to start building their Ruby pipeline across miles of Nevada, important for wildlife and cultural sites, the project is not ready to go according to federal land managers. A slightly longer route along existing roads and utility lines would protect key wildlife areas and Native American cultural sites while creating more jobs for Nevadans, according to the Sierra Club and Great Basin Resource Watch.

On July 12, 2010 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) signed the “conditional” right-of-way (ROW) for the Ruby Gas Pipeline from Wyoming to Oregon, including a 358-mile section across northern Nevada.    However, according to the Record of Decision (ROD), “Ruby s h a l l n o t [emphasis added] commence construction of project facilities or proceed with any ground-disturbing activities related to the Ruby Pipeline Project until Ruby ...receives a written notice to proceed from the BLM’s AO authorizing Ruby to commence construction...”    The “Notice to Proceed” hinges upon completion of environmental and cultural conditions set forth in the Certificate dated April 5, 2010, issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) which requires numerous Memo’s of Understanding (MOU) between impacted tribes, the State Historic Preservation Offices, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

“The very fact that the BLM ROD on the Right of Way is conditional is more evidence that this project has been moving too fast as there is still much to be done,” said David von Seggern of the Sierra Club.

For over a year tribes and environmental groups have been strongly opposed to the route that the proposed pipeline would take, especially the section through northern Nevada. The proposed route would go through a nearly pristine and mostly undeveloped corridor rather than following the existing designated energy corridor approved less than 5 years ago. If constructed, the pipeline would impact roughly 800 cultural sites, numerous sage grouse leks (critical mating locations), cross 60 perennial water systems, and clear a 115-ft wide path with numerous access roads through 358 miles of previously undisturbed high-desert steppe in Nevada.

“We have never been opposed to a gas pipeline project in general. It’s just that our proposed route benefits the public more in terms of job creation while minimizing the environmental and cultural impacts. By building the pipeline close to I-80, as we suggest, more jobs will be created in those communities than by Ruby’s preferred route – far away from these communities. So, our route provides more employment with fewer impacts,” von Seggern said.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a semi-autonomous branch with the Department of Energy and chartered directly by Congress is the lead federal agency in developing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), with the BLM as a cooperating agency. FERC moved in record time on this project from the initial notice of scoping to the acceptance of the final EIS taking 16 months to prepare.

“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 the possible alternative routes. Make no mistake about it, this is precisely the kind of fast-tracking and incomplete environmental analysis that precipitated the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,” said John Hadder, Director of Great Basin Resource Watch.

Well after the release of the final EIS, Ruby Pipeline, LLC was still submitting various environmental and cultural documents to the FERC docket that would normally been part of the draft EIS. The EIS was “completed” in January, 2010, yet FERC had still not completed the required consultation with the tribes on the corridor that would run through roughly 800 cultural sites, and significant environmental analysis, including the biological opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the compatible use study on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge.

As late as November 2009 there had been no government-to-government consultation with the Fort Bidwell tribe, who have significant cultural areas along the pipeline route. Stated in a November 5, 2009 letter to FERC from the Chairman of the Fort Bidwell tribe:

“Our aboriginal lands include all of the northwestern corner of Nevada so we are vitally interested in the proposed Ruby Pipeline ... Our ancestors used this area of thousands of years. They hunted, fished, and gathered plants for food and medicines. They prayed and worshipped, buried their dead, and survived in the harsh environment. This Barrel Springs area is an integral part of who we are as a people.    We are requesting consultation ...”

This came after an August 2009 letter to FERC expressing concerns over the speed at which the environmental analysis was proceeding: “...we are forced to rush our comments to FERC in an inexcusably short period of time ... the Tribe feels that this proposed route will, if allowed to go through, destroy much of our cultural heritage and current cultural resources.” However, the proposed route is unchanged to this day.

“During the public scoping period, many who commented took exception to the proposed route and suggested alternative routes of lesser environmental impact. These pleas to mitigate the environmental impact by avoidance were ignored,” said David von Seggern. “The Ruby Pipeline Project may well have violated environmental laws, and their proposed route won’t maximize the jobs benefits to local Nevada communities,” he said.