Add 3 More Lawsuits Against El Paso Corporation's Ruby Pipeline.

On 9/10, another three lawsuits were filed against El Paso Corporation's proposed Ruby Pipeline project. Along with previous lawsuits from Fort Bidwell Paiute and Summit Lake Paiute tribal councils disturbed by the route crossing sacred archeological sites and sensitive traditional tribal lands, three environmental groups who did NOT compromise with El Paso corporation (as WWP and ONDA did) have joined their lawsuits to others. Great Basin Resource Watch, Toiyabe Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife have expressed concerns about the Ruby Pipeline route crossing pristine habitat needed by endangered sage grouse for their breeding grounds (leks).

some background from HCN;

"More surprises flow from Ruby Pipeline"

Emilene Ostlind | Sep 17, 2010 11:55 AM

"Last month the HCN magazine ran a story on the furor over a conservation deal meant to keep two environmental groups from suing to stop construction of the Ruby Pipeline, a 675-mile-long natural gas pipe stretching from Opal, Wyo., to Malin, Ore. Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association opposed fragmentation and destruction of sagebrush habitat that would be caused by the project. Concerned that lawsuits would lead to expensive delays, the pipeline company, El Paso Corp., proposed two conservation funds totaling $22 million to protect habitat from another destructive force, cattle grazing. In exchange the conservation groups promised not to sue. Then, to El Paso's surprise, rural counties that had supported the pipeline for the jobs it would bring turned hostile, infuriated that El Paso was in cahoots with Western Watersheds, whose mission is to end public lands grazing.

Now pipeline construction is underway in seven simultaneous "spreads" along its length, and despite efforts to avoid litigation, lawsuits are stacking up. "If you want to learn how to do it wrong, follow their procedure," says John Hadder, one litigant, about the Bureau of Land Management's approved pipeline right-of-way. Hadder is director of Nevada's Great Basin Resource Watch, one of at least six different groups who've filed complaints this summer. He says El Paso pushed the BLM to hurry the environmental impact analysis too much. "For Ruby I presume it's the shortest path and less expensive," he says. "It's good on the engineering side, but not on the social or environmental side."
Here's a roundup of the existing litigation surrounding the Ruby Pipeline:

The Center for Biological Diversity kicked things off in late July with a petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee's approval of the pipeline, followed by a lawsuit against the BLM approved right-of-way. They argue that the pipeline will to harm nine endangered species of fish when it gouges through hundreds of streams. They also filed for an injunction on August 19 to have construction stopped while their case works it way through court, but the motion was denied in early September.

Next, on August 18, southwest Wyoming's Coalition of Local Governments, which includes Lincoln, Sweetwater, Uinta, and Sublette counties, sued over the BLM's approval of the right-of-way for the pipeline, saying the agency hadn't adequately analyzed the environmental and social impacts that will come from retirement of grazing permits under the conservation settlements. They expect other counties to join their appeal.

Meanwhile, soon after the conservation settlement was announced, the Public Lands Council – which represents livestock ranchers – approached El Paso to voice its opposition to the agreement, citing it's potentially detrimental effect on anching. In response, El Paso offered a $15 million trust to defend public lands grazing from the conservation funds. The Public Lands Council members have yet to vote on whether to accept this offer.

And last week, commissioners from all nine of the counties the pipeline passes through met in Salt Lake City and formalized an ad hoc group they call the Pipeline Coalition. They plan to send a delegation to El Paso headquarters to urge the company to retract its agreement with WWP and ONDA. Kent Connelly, county commissioner from Lincoln County, Wyo., vice chair of the Pipeline Coalition and chair of Wyoming's Coalition of Local Governments, calls both the conservation agreements and El Paso's proposed trust with the Public Lands Council "blackmail."

For more than two years the Northern Paiute including Nevada's Fort McDermot and Summit Lake Paiute tribes and the California's Fort Bidwell tribe have lobbied to divert the pipeline around their traditional lands in northwest Nevada. Dean Barlese, a cultural and spiritual guide at the Summit Lake Reservation, says, "We're not against the pipeline. It's just the route has taken it through some of the most pristine areas still left in Nevada." He says the BLM and other federal agencies conducted inadequate consultations with the tribes.

Aaron Townsend, vice chair of the Fort Bidwell tribal council, says a pipeline man camp has gone up just south of an area where the pipeline will bisect "house rings, burials, prayer sites – you name it, we've got everything – obsidian quarries, petroglyphs." He describes looting of cultural sites as people hear about archaeological resources along the pipeline corridor. The Fort Bidwell tribe recently filed a petition for review over the BLM's approved right-of-way for the pipeline.

And on Friday, September 10, three more groups – Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter in Nevada, and Great Basin Resource Watch – sued the BLM, Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Forest Service arguing that the right-of-way will negatively affect over 800 cultural sites, breeding ground for sage grouse, over 1,000 waterways, and many miles of undeveloped land. They propose an alternate route that is about 65 miles longer than the approved route and which follows existing energy corridors identified in the West-Wide Energy Corridor record of decision published last year, skirting south and west of northwest Nevada and cutting into California.

Mark Mackiewicz is overseeing the Ruby Pipeline project for the BLM. He's been getting a new lawsuit or petition for review on his desk every few days and can hardly keep track of it all. Regardless, he believes environmental resources on Western federal lands will come out ahead after construction of the pipeline because of the conservation settlements. "I'd rather see funding put on the ground to benefit resources than lawsuits," he says."

find article here;
http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/more-surprises-flow-from-ruby-pipeline

One of the litigants, GBRW, has great online info including a letter that can be downloaded and mailed to Sen. Harry Reid and BLM Manager Wenker. Not sure how effective these letter writing campaigns are, though for the time being seems to be the best option available.


from GBRW;

"Ruby Pipeline Action Page

The Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. (El Paso Corporation) Project which will transport natural gas from Wyoming through northern Utah and northern Nevada to Oregon is moving along quickly. However, there is still time to take action in stalling this project until all environmental and cultural impacts, as well as alternative routes, have been fully studied. Please download and sign the following letters (or write your own personalized letter) to Senator Harry Reid and Ron Wenker of the BLM.

The proposed route (above) will traverse across Northern Nevada, through undisturbed land, and will have damaging impacts on areas of environmental and cultural significance. Click on the map for a larger image.

California will be the beneficiary of the natural gas while Nevada will bear the majority of the negative environmental and cultural impacts. The damaging impacts could be avoided if a route was chosen along existing corridors such as Interstate 80 and the West-Wide Energy Corridors. It appears that El Paso Corporation is avoiding California at all costs, possibly due to stricter environmental laws in California or because the cost to do business is higher in the Golden State. Or...maybe El Paso Corporation wants to avoid California because they were found gulity of manipulating the natural gas energy market in California during the 2000-2001 energy crisis which resulted in blackouts and soaring natural gas prices in California. This Class Action suit resulted in El Paso Corporation paying the state of California $1.7 billion over the next 20 years.

Regardless of the reason to why El Paso does not traverse through California, the fact that El Paso does not use existing corridors will result in devastating environmental effects on, but not limited to, Greater Sage Grouse and its habitat in northern Nevada. The proposed route will also traverse directly through areas of cultural significance to Native Americans. This is evident where the proposed route will go directly through Barrel Springs in northern Washoe County, which is a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) boundary of the Fort Bidwell Indian Community, and is thus potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. has not provided a satisfactory explanation to why other less environmentally damaging alternative routes were not fully studied. Why is the West-Wide Energy Corridor (WWEC) being disregarded as an alternative route when the Federal Government has allocated substantial time and money to it? The Ruby Pipeline Project is a perfect example of a project that should utilize the existing energy corridors! In addition to the WWEC corridor, Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. has neglected to offer a thorough examination of other routes such as the Black Rock, Sheldon, and Interstate 80 routes. Not only does Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. need to report on why they prefer their proposed route, but they are also required by law to report extensively through detailed analyses on why they have not chosen other alternative routes. A paragraph or two in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) explaining why these alternative routes were eliminated is not acceptable. In addition, The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 states that in managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or otherwise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands. In light of the alternative routes, the proposed route does cause unnecessary and undue degradation of undisturbed public lands.

As with the Sierra Club, we would like to see the pipeline follow an alternate route (highlighted in blue above) that will have less severe environmental and cultural impacts. Click the map for a larger view.

In addition to the route concerns, the final EIS, issued on January 8, 2010, is inadequate and incomplete. Environmental and cultural reports continue to be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These reports should have been include in the final EIS as required by law. Most disturbing to the cultural studies shortfall is the fact that government-to-government consultation with native tribal communities has been limited to nonexistent. This lack of consultation is a violation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The lack of consultation with native tribal communities is also a direct violation of Executive Order 13175 which directly addresses consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and President Obama's Order of Transparency and Open Government in which Obama states "we will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration". However, neither tribes nor conservation groups were consulted regarding the proposed pipeline route. Consultation would have alleviated many concerns.

So, please take a moment to download, sign, and mail the letters at the top of this page to slow down this fast paced process!"

Please help stop Ruby Pipeline by visiting here;
http://www.gbrw.org/take-action/105-take-action-ruby-pipeline-project.html