Record of decision : Ruby Pipeline Project decision to reissue right-of-way grant : Lincoln and Uinta Counties, Wyoming ; Rich, Cache, and Box Elder Counties, Utah ; Elko, Humboldt and Washoe Counties, Nevada ; Lake and Klamath Counties, Oregon

2013·6.8 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. Nevada State Office, author

88067361
o
UnitedStatesDepartmentoftheInterior
BUREAUOFLANDMANAGEMENT
SupplementalEnvironmentalImpactStatementDOI-BLM-NV-0000-2013-0001-EIS
CaseFileNumbers:2880NVN-084650,OR-64807,UTU-82880.
AndWYW-171168(W0350)
RECORDOFDECISION
RubyPipelineProject
DecisiontoReissueRight-of-WayGrant
LincolnandUintaCounties,Wyoming
Rich,Cache,andBoxElderCountiesUtah
Elko,HumboldtandWashoeCounties,Nevada
LakeandKlamathCounties,Oregon
U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior
BureauofLandManagement
NevadaStateOffice
KemmererFieldOffice,Wyoming
SaltLakeFieldOffice,Utah
ElkoandWinnemucca DistrictOffices, Nevada
LakeviewResourceAreaandKlamathFallsResourceArea.Oregon
SurpriseFieldOffice,California
1340Financial Boulevard
Reno,Nevada89502
775-861-6400
O
RecordofDecision 'K
RubyPipelineProject
Introduction
TInhtiesridoor.cuBmuerneatucoonfsUtintduteMsatnhaegeRmeecnortd(BoLfMD)e,dNseivoand(aRSOtDat)eoOffftihcee,U.fSo.rtDheepaRrutbmyePnitpeolfinteheProjea
(LPLrCqe(cRtu)b.yI)tadnodcuimneclnutdsesthaesBuLmMm’asrdyeodfsipoubnlitcoirneviossluveemtehnetrIinghtth-eofd-ewdasyigornanmtaekdintgopRruobcyesPsipaenlidne,
thebasisformakingthisdedsion.
TheRODisbasedontheanalysescontainedintheFinalEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS),
theDraftSupplementalEnvironmentalImpaaStatement(SEIS)andtheFinalSEISforthe
RPurbqyecPLipIetlianlesoBiroelloiegsicoalnOtphienUi.oSn.F(iBsihOpa)n.dOWnildJluliyfe5,Se2r0v1i3c,e’tsh(eFRWeSv)isReedviBsiiOopntwoasthpeuJbluinseh8e,d2o0n10
theFederalEnergyRegulatoryCommission’s(FERC)websitefwww.ferc.^ovhTheRevised
BiOpisalsoattachedasAttachmentA,
ThisdocumentmeetstherequirementsforaROD,asprovidedinCouncilonEnvironmental
efQxoulpallloaiwitsnyet(dhCeiEngQmu)iodrraeengcudeleatftaioilounnbsdeclioondw4i,f0itehCdiFsaRRt4O§0D15C0co6ad.ne1b0oeafanFpdepdeBearLlaMeldHRteaognutdlhbaetoioIonkntseHr(-iCo1rF7R9B)0o-a§r1d1§5o09.f57..L2a,Ansadnd
ASEpIpSeaalnsd(RorOtDooannatphpersoparmieatdeatUen.itReedviSteawteosfCthoeurFtinaolfSAEpIpSeaalnsd),thseotohpepoBrtLuMniitsyretloeasseienkgrteheviFeiwnal
oftheRODrunconcurrentiy.
Background
TheProjectisa678-mile-long,42-inch-diameterinterstatenaturalgaspipelinebeginningnear
Opal,Wyoming,runningthroughnorthernUtahandnorthernNevada,andterminatingnear
Malin,Oregon.Theprojectcrossesabout368milesoffederalland.
TheFERCisthefederalagencyresponsibleforevaluatingapplicationstoconstructandoperate
interstatenaturalgaspipelinefacilities. Section7(c)oftheNaturalGasAct(NGA)authorizes
theFERCtoissueaCertificateofPublicConvenienceandNecessity(Certificate)ifit
determinesthattheproposedserviceisrequiredforthepublicconvenienceandnecessity[15
UnitedStatesCode(U.S.C.)717f(c)]. OnJanuary27,2009,Rubyfiledanapplicationwiththe
FERCforaCertificateofPublicConvenienceandNecessityfortheProject. TheFERC
preparedanEIStoassesstheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththeproposedProject.
TheBLM,BureauofReclamation(Reclamation),FWS,U.S.ForestService(USFS),Natural
ResourceConservationService,ArmyCorpsofEngineers,UtahPublicLandsPolicy
CoordinationOffice,andLincolnCounty(Wyoming)BoardofCountyCommissioners
participatedascooperatingagenciesinthepreparationoftheEISbecauseofjurisdictionover
partoftheprojectareaorbecauseofspecialexpertisewithrespecttoenvironmental
resourcesintheprojectarea.
TheBLMadoptedtheFinalEISfortheProjectinaccordancewith40CFR,§1506.3tomeetits
responsibilitiesundertheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA).
O
2
.
i!>ssce?xi W
RecordofDecision .m3
RubyP'petineProject
TheProjectwasapprovedbytheFERConApril5.2010andtheBLMissuedaRODgranting
arnidghttesromfi-nwaatyiaonndoftethmepoPrraqreyctusoenpJeurlmyit1s2,t2o0R1u0.byTfhoerRthOeWconasuttrhuocrtiizone,dotpheeruasteiooafFmeadienrtaelnalnacndes, CX
underjurisdictionoftheBLM,t^1eUSFS,Reclamation,andtheFWSinWyoming,Utah,Nevada,
andOregon. SinceJuly12,2010,theBLMhasIssuedfouradditionaldecisionsregardingthe
grant-
• theDecember10,2010decisionisfortheSummitLakeRouteVarianceinHumboldt
County,Nevada,andacceptsthefinalWinterConstructionPlanasAppendixVof
Ruby’sPlanofDevelopment(POD);
• theFebruary24,2011decisionisfortheKlamathCountyRercxjteinOregon;
• theDecember7,2011decisionapprovesfourabovegroundcathodesitesandfifteen
roadstomainlinevalves;
• theJuly27,2012dedslonincorporatesdocumentsthatrefleWathefinalpipelineasbuilt
andapprovaloftheLongTermMonitoringPlanasAppendix ofPOD.
Constructionofthepipelinecommencedinthesummerof2010andwascompletedInthe
summerof2011. ThepipelinewentIntoserviceonJuly28,2011
TheCenterforBiologicalDiversity,DefendersofWildlife,andSummitLakeRaiute
Tribe,amongotherentities,filedpetitionsforreviewofthe2010BiOpandtheBLM’sRODin
theNinthCircuitCourtofAppealscasenos.10-72356,10-72552, 10-72762, 10-72768,and10-
72775(consolidated).InOaober2012,thecourtdeniedmostofthepetitioners’claims,
includingallclaimsbroughtursdertheNationalHistoricPreservationAct,FederalLandPolicy
andManagementAct,andCleanWaterAct,butfoundthe2010BiOpandBLMRODtobe
inadequate.
Inapublishedopinion,thecourtremandedandvacatedthe2010BiOptotheFWS.Thecourt
heldthatFWS’sconsiderationofRuby’sEndangeredSpeciesArt(ESA)ConservationAction
Plan(CAP)ascumulativeeffectsinthe2010BiOpwasarbitraryandcapridous. Thecourtalso
foundthatthe2010BiOpdidnotadequatelyconsiderwhethergroundwaterwithdrawals
assodatedwithhydrostatictestinganddustabatementwouldimpactlistedfishthatoccurin
surfacewaters.ThecourtremandedandvacatedtheBLM’sRODbecauseitreliedonthe2010
BiOp,
Inanunpublishedopinion,thecourtfoundthattheFinalEISfortheProjectdidnotprovide
suffidentquantifiedordetaileddataaboutthecumulativelossofsagebrushstepp>evegetation
andhabitatanddidnotp>rovideinformationonhowmuchacreagesagebrushstepp>eusedto
occupy,orwhatpercentagehasbeendestroyed. Thus,thecourtremandedtheRODtothe
BLMforfurtheranalysisofcumulativeimpactstosagebrushstepp>evegetationandhabitat.The
courtsubsequentiystayedvacatureofthe2010BiOpuntiltheFWSissuedtheRevisedBiOp
andstayedvacatureoftheBLM’sRODuntiltheBLMissuesanewROD.
TheBureauofLandManagement’sDecision
TheBLM’sdecisionistoreissuetheJuly12,2010right-of-way,aspreviouslyamended,forthe
Project TheBLMwillnotrequireadditionalpost-constructionmitigationorchangestothe
3
RecordofDecision
RubyPipelineProject
right-of-waygrant. AllelementsoftheJuly12,2010RODandsubsequentBLMdecisions(see
atove)remaininfullforceandeffect,includingallstipulations,monitoring,andmitigation
measures.
ReasonsfortheDecision
Inmakingthisdecision,theBLMreviewedandcarefullyconsideredpertinentFederallaws,
impactsidentifiedIntheFinalEIS,RevisedBiOpandFinalSEIS,relevantissuesandconcerns,
andinputfromagencies.NativeAmericantribes,andthepublicreceivedthroughouttheSEIS
publicreviewprocess,includingcommentsontheDraftSEIS. TheBLM’sassessmentof
cumulativeImpactstosagebrushsteppeintheFinalSEISandtheFWS’sconclusionsinthe
RevisedBiOparesummarizedbelow.
TheFinalEISaddressesthecourt’sdirectiontoprovidequantifiedanddetaileddataaboutthe
cumulativelossofsagebrushsteppevegetationandhabitatand informationonhowmuch
acreagesagebrushsteppeusetooccupy,andwhatpercentagehasbeendestroyed.Italso
includesdetailedinformationonpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeableactionswithinthe
cumulativeimpactarea,asdefinedintheRnalEISfortheProject,whichhaveresultedinand
mayinthefuturecausesignificantimpacts.
ThedirectandindirectimpactsoftheProjectremainthesameasthosediscussedintheRnal
EIS. TheFinalSEISIsconsistentwiththeFinalEISinconcludingthatclearingofsagebrush
steppefortheProjectcouldresultinlong-termimpactsontheenvironmentbecausethis
vegetationtypecouldtakeaslongas50yearsormoretoreturntopreconstruction
conditions.ThemitigationrequiredbytheFERCCertificateandtheBLMRODisintendedto
addressthesesignificant,long-termimpacts.ThemitigationdescribedintheFinalEISand
includes,butisnotlimitedto,activitiessuchassegregatingtopsoilfromsubsoilduring
constructiontopreservethenativeseedbankinthetopsoil;reseedingareasdisturb^by
constructionwithspedessimilartothoseinthesurroundingnaturalplantcommunities;
plantingshrubstoaidinthereestablishmentofsagebrushandothershrubbyspecies;
implementingmeasurestocontrolthespreadofinvasiveandnoxious weedsduringandafter
construction;andfundforoff-sitemitigation,suchastherestorationandhabitatimprovement
projectsdescribedinTableIoftheFinalSEIS.
The2010BiOpfoundthattheproposedactionwasnotlikelytojeopardizethecontinuing
existenceofanyofthelistedspedesorresultindestructionoradversemodificationof
designatedcriticalhabitats.ThefindingsoftheRevisedBiOp,describedbelow,areconsistent
withthosereachedinthe201OBiOp.
"AfterreviewingthecurrentstatusofLahontancutthroattrout,Warnersucker,Modocsucker.
LostRiversucker,shortnosesucker,Coloradopikeminnow,humpbackchub,razorbacksucker,
andbonytailchub,anddesignatedcriticalhabitatforWarnersucker,Coloradopikeminnow.
humpbackchub,razorbacksucker,andbonytailchub,dieenvironmentalbaselineforthese
listedfishesandtheirdesignatedcriticalhabitatswithintheactionarea,theeffectsofthe
proposedactionandcumulativeeffects,itistheFWS’bioloffcalopinionthattheProjeaisnot
likelytojeopardizethecontinuedexistenceofLahontancutthroattrout,Warnersucker,Modoc O
4
RecordofDecision
RubyPipelineProject
sucker,LostRiversucker,shortnosesucker,Coloradopikeminnow.humpbackchubrazorback
sucker,andPonytaildrub(RevisedBiOp,Page15).“
TheFWSalsoaffirmedtheaccuracyoftheincidentaltakestatementfoundinthe2010BiOp
andincorporateditbyreference. Thoseconclusionsweredrawnwithoutconsiderationofor
relianceontheESACAP. Theconservationrecommendationsdescribedinthe2010BiOp
werereviewedbytheFWS,weredeterminedtostandaswritten,andwereincorporatedby
reference.
MitigationandMonitoring
TheCEQregulationsrequireagenciestoidentifyintheirRODanymitigationmeasuresthat
arenecessarytominimizeenvironmentalharmfromthealternativeselected[40CFR§
1505.2(c)].Theregulationsfurtherstatethatamonitoringandenforcementprogramshallbe
adoptedwhereapplicableforanymitigation(40CFR§1505.3).'
Asexplainedabove,thePrqectisimpactsremainareconsistentwiththosedisclosedinthe
RnalEIS. TheFinalSEISthoroughlydiscussesthecumulativeImpactstosagebrushsteppe
habitatvWthinthecumulativeimpactareaandsummarizesthesubstantialmitigationrequiredby
theBLM’sJuly12,2010ROD(andtheFERC’sCertificate). Themitigationmeasuresrequired
bytheRODareIntendedtoaddressthesigiificantlong-termimpactstosage-brushsteppe
habitatrelatedtotheProjecLAllelementsoftheJuly12,2010RODandsubsequentBLM
decisionsremaininfullforceandeffect,includingallstipulations,monitoring,andmitigation
measures. TheBLMconcludesthatthosemitigationmeasuresareadequateandadditional
rrBtigationmeasuresarenotrequired.
SummaryofAgencyandTribalConsultationandPublicInvolvement
TheBLMsentacertifiedletter,datedMarch13,2013,notifying36NativeAmericantribesof
BLM’SIntenttodevelopanSEISforthePrqectandtoinitiategovernment-to-government
consultation. Follow-upphonecallsweremadetothetribesandprojectinformationwasalso
distributedanddiscussedaspartofgovernment-to-governmentconsultationbetweenthe
tribesandtheBLM.AsummaryofNativeAmericanconsultationandcoordinationonthis
effortisprovidedintheSEIS.
OnApril8,2013,theBLMinvitedeightfederalandstateentitiestobecooperatingagendesfor
thedevelopmentoftheRubyPipelineSEIS.AsdefinedbyCEQregulationsat40CFR§1508.5,
acooperatingagencyisonethathasspecialexpertisewithrespecttoanenvironmentalissue
and/orhasjurisdictionbylaw.Thefollowingagendesacceptedtheinvitationandsigneda
MemorandumofUnderstandingwiththeBLMascooperatingagendes:
CEO’sregulationsalsorequireaRODtodiscussalternativesconsideredbytheagencyinnnakiiigitsdecision.40
CisFsRued§C1e5r0t6i.f2i.catHeowsienvceerJ,uliyn2t8h,is20ca1s1e.,tThheusp,ipaeslisnteatisedcobnysttrhuecNtiendtahnCdirhcausitbeCeonurotpeorfatAipopneaallsp,ur“s[ua]atntthtisopaoiFnEtR,Ca-n
analysisofalternativeswouldnolongerinformdecision-makingregardingthepipeline’slocation.”Centerfor
BiologicalDiversitf,etof.v.BLM,etal.,CaseNo.10-72356,at5(2012)(unpublishedopinion).
5
RecordofDecision
RubyPipelineProject
• U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,Fremont-WinemaNationalForest;
• UtahDivisionofWildlifeResources(viaUtahPublicLandsPolicyCoordinationOffice);
• NevadaDepartmentofWildlife;and
• WyomingGameandFishDepartment.
OnApril30,2013theEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)publishedthe"NoticeofIntentto
PrepareaDraftSupplementalEnvironmentalImpactStatementfortheRubyPipelinePrqecf’inthe
aFendderpaolsRtecgairsdtsern(ot7i8fyFiRng2t5h3e0p1u).bliIncaodfdtihtiisone,fftohretBLMNevadaStateOfficeissuedapressrelease
TheBLMsentacertifiedletter,datedJulyI,2013,notifying36tribesofthepubliccomment
periodontheDraft;SEISandtoagainextendtheofferofgovernment-to-government
consultation.TheBLMincludedadigitalcopyoftheDraftSEISandahardcopy,ifpreviously
requested.TheBLMfollowed-upwithtribesanddistributedadditionalinformation,as
requested,aspartofgovernment-to-governmentconsultationswiththetribes.
OnJuly5,2013,theBLMandEPApublishedthe“NoticeofAvailabilityoftheDraft
SupplementalEnvironmentalImpactStatementfortheRubyPipelineProject”intheFederal
Register(78FR40496)announcingtheavailabilityoftheDraftSEISforpublicreviewand
comment. Inaddition,theBLMissuedapressreleaseandsentpostcardnotificationstothe
revisedProjectmailinglist. ThereleaseoftheDraftSEISinitiatedaformal4S-daypublic
commentperiodthatendedonAugust19,2013. Thepublicwasencouragedtosubmit
substantivecommentsviaemail,regularmail,andtheePIanningNEPARegister.
TheDraftSEISwasmadeavailabletothepublicviatheBLMRubyProjectwebsite:
http:y/www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/info/nepa/ruby_pipeline__project.html,andtheePIanningNEPA
Registerat;http://on.doi.gov/IOQtaTb. ConsistentwithdieFinalEISdistribution,theDraftSEIS
wasavailableatlibrariesandotherlocations. Thelistofadditionallocationscanbefoundon
theProjectwebsite.
TheBLMreceived31commentsubmissionsontheDraftSEISfromthepublic,agencies,tribes,
organizations,andbusinessesduringthecommentperiod. Substantivecommentswere
consideredduringpreparationofthisFinalSEIS. AppendixAoftheRnalSEISsummarizesthe
commentsandtheresponsestothosecomments.
PublicationanddistributionoftheRODandpublicnotificationofthereleaseoftheFinalSEIS
wasconsistentwiththeapproachusedfortheDraftSEIS.
SummaryofPublicCommentontheDraftSEIS
eDmuariiln,gotrhveiaDrtahfetNSEEIPSApuebPlIiacnncionmgmReegnitstpeerr).ioCd,omthmeenBtLsMfrreocmeiNvaedti3ve1wArmietrtiecnacnotmrmibeens,tsfed(elertatle,r,
state,andlocalagencies,andthepublicwereanalyzedandconsideredinpreparationofthe
FinalSEISandthisROD.
WhilecommentsontheDraftSEISwerewideranging,themajorityofcommentswerefocused
onthreetopics.First,commentersquestionedtheBLM’sdistinctionthattheimpactsofthe
6
RecordofDecision
RubyPipelineProject
Prqectwouldnotbesignificanttosagebrushsteppehabitatwhenconsideringpresentand
reasonablyforeseeablefutureactions,butcumulativeimpactstosagebrushsteppewouldbe
significantwhenconsideringpast,present,andreasonablyforeseeablefutureactions,
Commenterssi^estedthat,whenconsideringpresentandreasonablyforeseeablefuture
actions,theimpactsfromRubyshouldbeconsideredsignificant Second,commenters
requesteddtherthattheBLMreportbacktothepublicontheeffectivenessofon-siteandoff-
siterestorationandmitigationeffortsorincludeadditionalmitigationtoaddressrecommended
changestothesignificancedeterminationandtheeffectivenessofcurrentrestorationefforts.
Third,commentersrequestedadditionalinformationanddiscussiononlivestock,wildhorses
andburros.
R^rdingthesignificancedetermination,theDraftandFinalSEISacknowledgethatpastactions
havehadasignificantcumulativeimpactonthesagebrushsteppehabitat. TheFinalSEISwas
revisedtonotethatcumulativeImpactsfrompresentandreasonablyfor^eeablefutureactions
alsomaybesignificant.TheimpactsoftheRubyPipelineProjectremainthesameasthose
discussedIntheFinalEIS. Asexplainedabove,theBLMhasdeterminedthatexistingmitigation
measuresrequiredIntheRODandCertificateareadequateandnoadditionalmitigationis
required. Regardingrestoration,theRnalSEISwasrevisedtoIncludeamoredetailed
discussionoft(I)Ruby’sobligationsregardingrestoration,monitoring,andreporting;and(2)
theBLM’sroleIndeterminingwhenrestorationgoalshavebeenmet,thepossibilityof
extendingmonitoringifgoalsarenotbeingmet,andthereleaseofthebondsubmittedbyRuby
whengoalsaremet.Moreover,restorationeffortspertaintoimplementationoftheRODand
arenotgermanetothecourt’sdirectiontoprovideamorerobustdiscussionofthecumulative
impactstosagebrushsteppevegetationandhabitat. TheBLMandFERCwillcontinueto
enforceapplicablerestorationandmonitoringrequirements. Finally,discussionandanalysisin
theCumulativeEffectsandExistingEnvironmentsectionsregardinglivestodcandwildhorses
andburroswasupdatedandrevisedinresponsetocomments.
SomecommentersalsorequestedthattheBLMIncorporateotheradditionalactions,suchas
connectingpipelineprojects,intothecumulativeImpactsanalysis.BLMreviewedspedficactions
andincorporatedthemasappropriate,giventhescopeoftheRnalSEISandcumulativeimpact
areadefinedintheFinalEIS.TheRnalSEISalsoincludedminorrevisionsinresponseto
comments.SeveralcommentersrequestedtheBLMtoconsidertopicsoutsideofthescopeof
theanalysisasdescribedinthePurposeandNeed.TheBLM’sresponsestothesubstantive
commentsandasummaryofadditionalcommentsreceivedduringthecommentperiodare
indudedintheFinalSEIS(AttachmentA,DraftRubySEISCommentResponseReport).
Sometribessubmittedcommentssimilartothosediscussedabove. Sometribesalso
questionedtheseedmixesusedduringrestoration,affirmedtheirrighttogovernment-to-
governmentconsultation,andstressedtheculturalandreligioussignificanceofsagebrush
steppehabitattoNativeAmericantribes. TheBLMappreciatesthosecomments,andtheBLM
hasrespondedtothemintheFinalSEIS(AttachmentA,DraftRubySEISCommentResponse
Report).
AppealRights
7
RecordofDecision
RubyPipelineProject
Byregulation,43CFR§28810.1(b),thisRODiseffectivependingappeal. ThisRODmaybe
appealedtotheInteriorBoardofLandAppeals(IBLA)inaccordancewiththatregulation,the
prreovviieswioonfstohifs4R3OCDFRby§f4i,lianngdatpheteietinocnlofsoerdreFvoiremww18it4h2-a1n.aAplptreorpnartiiavteelyU,nyitoeudmSatyatseseeCkojuurditcioafl
A(EpPpAecatl)s,pwuhriscuhanatmteond4e3dCSFeRct§io4n.2119(co)fatnhdeSNeacttuiroanl3G1a3s(bA)cotf(tNheGAE)nearngdyPisolciocdyifAicetdoinfr2e0l0e5vant
partatl5U.S.C.§7l7r.
AppealstotheIBLA
IfyoudecidetofileanappealwiththeIBLA,yourNoticeofAppealmustbeaddressedtothe
NevadaStateDirectorandservedontheOfficeoftheRegionalSolicitorattheaddresses
belowwithin30daysofthedateofthepublicationoftheEPA’sNOAoftheRODandFinal
SEISintheFederalReffster. Theappellanthastheburdenofshowingthatthedecisionappealed
fromisinerror.
NevadaStateDirector
BLMNevadaStateOffice
R1e3n4o0,FNinVanc8i9al50B2oulevard
OfficeoftheRegionalSolicitor
PacificSouthwestRegion
2800CottageWay,E-I7I2
Sacramento,CA95825
Within30daysoffilingtheNoticeofAppeal,youmustfileacompletestatementofthereasons
whyyouareappealing.ThismustbefiledwiththeIBLAatthefollowingaddresswithacopyto
theOfficeoftheRegionalSolicitorattheaddressabove.Ifyoufullystatedyourreasonsfor
appealingwhenfilingtheNoticeofAppeal,noadditionalstatementisnecessary.
InteriorBoardofLandAppeals
OfficeofHearingsandAppeals
8Ar0li1nNgotornt,hVQAui2n2c2y03Street,MS300-QC
oIffytohueweifsfehcttiovefinleesaspoeftitthiiosnd,epciusrisounandturtion4g3thCeFtRim§e§t2h8a8t1y.o1u0(rb)apapnedal4i3sCbeFiRng§r4e.v2i1e(wb)e.dfboryathsetay
IBLA,thepetitionforastaymustaccompanyyourNoticeofAppeal. Apetitionforastayis
requiredtoshowsuffidentjustificationbasedonthestandardslistedbelow. Copiesofthe
NoticeofAf^ealandpetitionforastaymustalsobesubmittedtoeachpartynamedinthis
dedsion,theIBLA,andtheOfficeoftheRegionalSolicitor(see43CFR§§4.413)atthesame
timetheoriginaldocumentsarefiledattheofficeoftheNevadaStateDirector. Ifycxjrequest
astay,youhavetheburdenofprooftodemonstratethatastayshouldbegranted.
dEexcciespitonaspeontdhienrgwiaspepeparlovshiadleldsbhyowlaswufofridoetnhtejruspteirfitcianteinotnbreagsueldatoionnst,heafpoeltliotwiionngfsortaandsatradyso:fa O
8
55
RecordofDecision
RubyPipelineProject
(1) Therelativeharmtothepartiesifthestayisgrantedordenied,
(2) Thelikelihoodoftheappellant’ssuccessonthemerits,
(3) Thelikelihoodofimmediateandirreparableharmifthestayisnotgranted,and
(4) Whetherthepublicinterestfavorsgrantingthestay.
PetiticMisforJudicialReview
Section19oftheNGAstates,“TheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsforthedrcuitinwhicha
facilitysut^ecttosection717bofthistitleorsection717fofthistitleisproposedtobe
constructed,expanded,oroperatedshallhaveoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionoveranycivil
actionforthereviewofanorderoractionofaFederalagency(otherthantheCommission)or
StateadministrativeagencyactingpursuanttoFederallawtoissue,condition,ordenyany
permit,license,concurrence,orapproval(hereinaftercollectivelyreferredtoas"permit")
requiredunderFederallaw,otherthantheCoastalZoneManagementActof1972.” 15U.S.C.
§7l7r(d)(l).
TUh.iSs.CR.O§D7l7irs(adn)(ol)rdbeercaoursaectitioisnaonfaagFeendceyradlecaigseionncytoisissusiunegaanpdercmointd,itaisotnhaatBtLeMrmRIsOuWsegdriannt1
fortheuseofFederallandsinvolvedIntheRubyPipelineProject,whichisafecilitythathas
beenconstructedandwillbeoperatedpursuantto15U.S.C.§7l7f.Accordingly,thisRODis
appealabledirectlytoanaR3ropriateUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsinaccordancewith1
U.S.C.§7l7r(d)(1)andtheFederalRulesofAppellateProcedure.
ApprovalSignature
ApprovedBy. Date:
AmyLueders
AuthorizedOfficerand
NevadaStateDirector
BureauofLandManagement
ContactPerson:
MarkA.Mackiewicz,PMP
SeniorNationalProjectManager
BureauofLandManagement
WashingtonOffice
125South600West
Price,Utah84501
[phone]
O
9
o